On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:27:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/5/2021 9:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:30:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
> >>>>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
> >>>>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
> >>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
> >>>>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
> >>>>>>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that t people with no education in physics make.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
> >>>>>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
> >>>>> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
> >>>>> proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there
> >>>>> is no new physics
> >>>>> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
> >>>> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
> >>>> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
> >>>> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
> >>>> explain it to you.
> >>>
> >>> ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the
> >>> other end of the string, must be in circular motion in order to maintain
> >>> the ball in circular motion.
> >> Not if there’s no air.
> > Moron, learn high school physics.....the fingers holding the other end of the string must be in circular motion in air or in vacuum. Gee you are so fucking stupid.......no wonder you are just a woodworker.
> Stupid Ken, the fingers need motion to overcome air resistance on the
> ball/string and the "bearing" resistance of the string on the finger.

Moron, the fingers need to impart tangential momentum to the ball so that it can balance out the centripetal force exert by the string. Gee you are so fucking stupid....no wonder your name is moron_y.

> None of which apply to the moon in its orbit (in a vacuum and no string
> attaching to some “bearing” on earth)

It has everything apply to the moon. Whirling a ball on a string shows that it requires two different forces to maintain the ball go around in circles.. The moon and the earth are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. This cause a repulsive effect between them and this is the CRE force. The attractive EM force in combination with the CRE force enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit.
>
>>
> >>> Guess why he is just a woodworker.
> And you are just a senile old crank babbling away in an assisted living
> home. Odd probably has forgotten more physics than you know now.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:27:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/5/2021 9:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:30:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>>>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>>>>>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a
>>>>>>>>> great example of the
>>>>>>>>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that t people with no education in physics make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
>>>>>>>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
>>>>>>> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
>>>>>>> proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there
>>>>>>> is no new physics
>>>>>>> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
>>>>>> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
>>>>>> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
>>>>>> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
>>>>>> explain it to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the
>>>>> other end of the string, must be in circular motion in order to maintain
>>>>> the ball in circular motion.
>>>> Not if there’s no air.
>>> Moron, learn high school physics.....the fingers holding the other end
>>> of the string must be in circular motion in air or in vacuum. Gee you
>>> are so fucking stupid.......no wonder you are just a woodworker.
>> Stupid Ken, the fingers need motion to overcome air resistance on the
>> ball/string and the "bearing" resistance of the string on the finger.
>
> Moron, the fingers need to impart tangential momentum to the ball so that
> it can balance out the centripetal force exert by the string.

No they don’t. Angular momentum is conserved. It does not need a force to
maintain it. This is covered in high school physics, which you never
learned.

But if you feel the need to die while holding onto to this basic
misconception, you’re free to do so.

> Gee you are so fucking stupid....no wonder your name is moron_y.
>
>> None of which apply to the moon in its orbit (in a vacuum and no string
>> attaching to some “bearing” on earth)
>
> It has everything apply to the moon. Whirling a ball on a string shows
> that it requires two different forces to maintain the ball go around in
> circles. The moon and the earth are confined to follow the divergent
> structure of the E-Matrix. This cause a repulsive effect between them and
> this is the CRE force. The attractive EM force in combination with the
> CRE force enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit.
>>
> >>
>>>>> Guess why he is just a woodworker.
>> And you are just a senile old crank babbling away in an assisted living
>> home. Odd probably has forgotten more physics than you know now.
>

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

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:04:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:27:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/5/2021 9:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:30:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
> >>>>>>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
> >>>>>>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
> >>>>>>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a
> >>>>>>>>> great example of the
> >>>>>>>>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that t people with no education in physics make.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
> >>>>>>>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
> >>>>>>> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
> >>>>>>> proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there
> >>>>>>> is no new physics
> >>>>>>> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
> >>>>>> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
> >>>>>> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
> >>>>>> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
> >>>>>> explain it to you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the
> >>>>> other end of the string, must be in circular motion in order to maintain
> >>>>> the ball in circular motion.
> >>>> Not if there’s no air.
> >>> Moron, learn high school physics.....the fingers holding the other end
> >>> of the string must be in circular motion in air or in vacuum. Gee you
> >>> are so fucking stupid.......no wonder you are just a woodworker.
> >> Stupid Ken, the fingers need motion to overcome air resistance on the
> >> ball/string and the "bearing" resistance of the string on the finger.
> >
> > Moron, the fingers need to impart tangential momentum to the ball so that
> ntrigual force and the > it can balance out the centripetal force exert by the string.
> No they don’t. Angular momentum is conserved. It does not need a force to
> maintain it. This is covered in high school physics, which you never
> learned.

I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.
In any case the centrifugal force and the centripetal force give rise to the tangential acceleration.
>
> But if you feel the need to die while holding onto to this basic
> misconception, you’re free to do so.
> > Gee you are so fucking stupid....no wonder your name is moron_y.
> >
> >> None of which apply to the moon in its orbit (in a vacuum and no string
> >> attaching to some “bearing” on earth)
> >
> > It has everything apply to the moon. Whirling a ball on a string shows
> > that it requires two different forces to maintain the ball go around in
> > circles. The moon and the earth are confined to follow the divergent
> > structure of the E-Matrix. This cause a repulsive effect between them and
> > this is the CRE force. The attractive EM force in combination with the
> > CRE force enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit.
> >>
> > >>
> >>>>> Guess why he is just a woodworker.
> >> And you are just a senile old crank babbling away in an assisted living
> >> home. Odd probably has forgotten more physics than you know now.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 5/6/2021 8:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:27:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/5/2021 9:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:30:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>>>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>>>>>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
>>>>>>>>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that t people with no education in physics make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
>>>>>>>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
>>>>>>> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
>>>>>>> proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there
>>>>>>> is no new physics
>>>>>>> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
>>>>>> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
>>>>>> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
>>>>>> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
>>>>>> explain it to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the
>>>>> other end of the string, must be in circular motion in order to maintain
>>>>> the ball in circular motion.
>>>> Not if there’s no air.
>>> Moron, learn high school physics.....the fingers holding the other end of the string must be in circular motion in air or in vacuum. Gee you are so fucking stupid.......no wonder you are just a woodworker.
>> Stupid Ken, the fingers need motion to overcome air resistance on the
>> ball/string and the "bearing" resistance of the string on the finger.
>
> Moron, the fingers need to impart tangential momentum to the ball so that it can balance out the centripetal force exert by the string. Gee you are so fucking stupid....no wonder your name is moron_y.

Stupid Ken, first momentum is not force, second the centripetal force
acts at right angles to tangential anything, so it CAN'T cancel it out.
We keep trying to tell you that you don't understand physics at all
which is why you are so wrong all the time.

The hand motion is to add energy back to the moving ball which is lost
to air resistance.
>
>> None of which apply to the moon in its orbit (in a vacuum and no string
>> attaching to some “bearing” on earth)
>
> It has everything apply to the moon.

What, Stupid Ken? Are you saying air resistance is slowing down the
moon? Are you saying the resistance to the motion of the string
connecting the earth to the moon is slowing the moon down?

> Whirling a ball on a string shows that it requires two different forces to maintain the ball go around in circles.

Once again, Stupid Ken, adding energy to overcome friction doesn't prove
anything about two forces. Besides, Newton's PROOF, learned by every
high school physics student, PROVES only one force is necessary to
maintain a stable orbit.

> The moon and the earth are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. This cause a repulsive effect between them and this is the CRE force. The attractive EM force in combination with the CRE force enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit.

Irrelevant unsupported worthless assertions. This is about PHYSICS, not
your fantasy world.

>>>>> Guess why he is just a woodworker.
>> And you are just a senile old crank babbling away in an assisted living
>> home. Odd probably has forgotten more physics than you know now.

No comment, Stupid Ken?

On Thursday, 6 May 2021 at 18:22:33 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Irrelevant unsupported worthless assertions. This is about PHYSICS, not
> your fantasy world.

This is about the fantasy world of Wise Gurus! About their
unsuppoerted assertions of some next-to-infinite value!!!

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:04:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 7:27:14 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/2021 9:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:30:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>>>>>>>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a
>>>>>>>>>>> great example of the
>>>>>>>>>>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that t people with no education in physics make.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
>>>>>>>>>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
>>>>>>>>> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
>>>>>>>>> proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there
>>>>>>>>> is no new physics
>>>>>>>>> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
>>>>>>>> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
>>>>>>>> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
>>>>>>>> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
>>>>>>>> explain it to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the
>>>>>>> other end of the string, must be in circular motion in order to maintain
>>>>>>> the ball in circular motion.
>>>>>> Not if there’s no air.
>>>>> Moron, learn high school physics.....the fingers holding the other end
>>>>> of the string must be in circular motion in air or in vacuum. Gee you
>>>>> are so fucking stupid.......no wonder you are just a woodworker.
>>>> Stupid Ken, the fingers need motion to overcome air resistance on the
>>>> ball/string and the "bearing" resistance of the string on the finger.
>>>
>>> Moron, the fingers need to impart tangential momentum to the ball so that
>> ntrigual force and the > it can balance out the centripetal force exert by the string.
>> No they don’t. Angular momentum is conserved. It does not need a force to
>> maintain it. This is covered in high school physics, which you never
>> learned.
>
> I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.

They’re related, with the radius being the constant of proportionality.

> In any case the centrifugal force and the centripetal force give rise to
> the tangential acceleration.

Can’t. Vector addition doesn’t work that way.

Again, you lack high school basics.

>>
>> But if you feel the need to die while holding onto to this basic
>> misconception, you’re free to do so.
>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid....no wonder your name is moron_y.
>>>
>>>> None of which apply to the moon in its orbit (in a vacuum and no string
>>>> attaching to some “bearing” on earth)
>>>
>>> It has everything apply to the moon. Whirling a ball on a string shows
>>> that it requires two different forces to maintain the ball go around in
>>> circles. The moon and the earth are confined to follow the divergent
>>> structure of the E-Matrix. This cause a repulsive effect between them and
>>> this is the CRE force. The attractive EM force in combination with the
>>> CRE force enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guess why he is just a woodworker.
>>>> And you are just a senile old crank babbling away in an assisted living
>>>> home. Odd probably has forgotten more physics than you know now.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On 5/6/2021 12:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:04:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Moron, the fingers need to impart tangential momentum to the ball so that
>> ntrigual force and the > it can balance out the centripetal force exert by the string.
>> No they don’t. Angular momentum is conserved. It does not need a force to
>> maintain it. This is covered in high school physics, which you never
>> learned.
>
> I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.

All momentum is conserved, Stupid Ken.

> In any case the centrifugal force and the centripetal force give rise to the tangential acceleration.

Stupid Ken, centrifugal force (which isn't a force in inertial frames)
and centripetal force are at right angles to tangential anything, so
they can't affect it! Also forces combine to produce other forces so
you shouldn't be discussing tangential acceleration. All those science
terms (force, momentum, acceleration) confuse you.

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:41:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/6/2021 12:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:04:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Moron, the fingers need to impart tangential momentum to the ball so that
> >> ntrigual force and the > it can balance out the centripetal force exert by the string.
> >> No they don’t. Angular momentum is conserved. It does not need a force to
> >> maintain it. This is covered in high school physics, which you never
> >> learned.
> >
> > I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.
> All momentum is conserved, Stupid Ken.

Moron, tangential momentum requires the continuous application of forces.
> > In any case the centrifugal force and the centripetal force give rise to the tangential acceleration.
> Stupid Ken, centrifugal force (which isn't a force in inertial frames)

Moron Mike we are not talking about inertial frame. BTW no inertiframe of the aether.al frame exists on earth. The only inertial frame exist is the rest frame of the aether.

> and centripetal force are at right angles to tangential anything,
Moron, Centripetal acceleration in combination with centrifugal acceleration gives tangential acceleration.

>so
> they can't affect it! Also forces combine to produce other forces so
> you shouldn't be discussing tangential acceleration. All those science
> terms (force, momentum, acceleration) confuse you.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:41:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/6/2021 12:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:04:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Moron, the fingers need to impart tangential momentum to the ball so that
>>>> ntrigual force and the > it can balance out the centripetal force exert by the string.
>>>> No they don’t. Angular momentum is conserved. It does not need a force to
>>>> maintain it. This is covered in high school physics, which you never
>>>> learned.
>>>
>>> I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.
>> All momentum is conserved, Stupid Ken.
>
> Moron, tangential momentum requires the continuous application of forces.

Conservation of momentum says otherwise. Basic stuff.

>>> In any case the centrifugal force and the centripetal force give rise
>>> to the tangential acceleration.
>> Stupid Ken, centrifugal force (which isn't a force in inertial frames)
>
> Moron Mike we are not talking about inertial frame. BTW no inertiframe of
> the aether.al frame exists on earth. The only inertial frame exist is the
> rest frame of the aether.
>
>> and centripetal force are at right angles to tangential anything,
> Moron, Centripetal acceleration in combination with centrifugal
> acceleration gives tangential acceleration.
>
>> so
>> they can't affect it! Also forces combine to produce other forces so
>> you shouldn't be discussing tangential acceleration. All those science
>> terms (force, momentum, acceleration) confuse you.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 5/6/2021 5:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:41:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/6/2021 12:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.
>> All momentum is conserved, Stupid Ken.
>
> Moron, tangential momentum requires the continuous application of forces.

No, it doesn't, Stupid Ken. Momentum is always conserved. Force
transfers momentum between bodies. So continuous application of force
would constantly change momentum.

You really, really, really need to study a high school physics book.
You won't, of course. That's why you are known as Stupid Ken, Stupid Ken.

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:34:27 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:41:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/6/2021 12:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:04:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Moron, the fingers need to impart tangential momentum to the ball so that
> >>>> ntrigual force and the > it can balance out the centripetal force exert by the string.
> >>>> No they don’t. Angular momentum is conserved. It does not need a force to
> >>>> maintain it. This is covered in high school physics, which you never
> >>>> learned.
> >>>
> >>> I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.
> >> All momentum is conserved, Stupid Ken.
> >
> > Moron, tangential momentum requires the continuous application of forces.
> Conservation of momentum says otherwise. Basic stuff.
It’s basic stuff if the tangential direction of an object is continuously changing there must be an applied force.

> >>> In any case the centrifugal force and the centripetal force give rise
> >>> to the tangential acceleration.
> >> Stupid Ken, centrifugal force (which isn't a force in inertial frames)
> >
> > Moron Mike we are not talking about inertial frame. BTW no inertiframe of
> > the aether.al frame exists on earth. The only inertial frame exist is the
> > rest frame of the aether.
> >
> >> and centripetal force are at right angles to tangential anything,
> > Moron, Centripetal acceleration in combination with centrifugal
> > acceleration gives tangential acceleration.
> >
> >> so
> >> they can't affect it! Also forces combine to produce other forces so
> >> you shouldn't be discussing tangential acceleration. All those science
> >> terms (force, momentum, acceleration) confuse you.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:34:27 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:41:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2021 12:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:04:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Moron, the fingers need to impart tangential momentum to the ball so that
>>>>>> ntrigual force and the > it can balance out the centripetal force
>>>>>> exert by the string.
>>>>>> No they don’t. Angular momentum is
>>>>>> conserved. It does not need a force to
>>>>>> maintain it. This is covered in high school physics, which you never
>>>>>> learned.
>>>>>
>>>>> I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.
>>>> All momentum is conserved, Stupid Ken.
>>>
>>> Moron, tangential momentum requires the continuous application of forces.
>> Conservation of momentum says otherwise. Basic stuff.
>
> It’s basic stuff if the tangential direction of an object is continuously
> changing there must be an applied force.

We’ve been through all this several times.

You are at the point where you are incapable of learning anything one day
that you won’t forget the next.

>
>>>>> In any case the centrifugal force and the centripetal force give rise
>>>>> to the tangential acceleration.
>>>> Stupid Ken, centrifugal force (which isn't a force in inertial frames)
>>>
>>> Moron Mike we are not talking about inertial frame. BTW no inertiframe of
>>> the aether.al frame exists on earth. The only inertial frame exist is the
>>> rest frame of the aether.
>>>
>>>> and centripetal force are at right angles to tangential anything,
>>> Moron, Centripetal acceleration in combination with centrifugal
>>> acceleration gives tangential acceleration.
>>>
>>>> so
>>>> they can't affect it! Also forces combine to produce other forces so
>>>> you shouldn't be discussing tangential acceleration. All those science
>>>> terms (force, momentum, acceleration) confuse you.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 10:03:51 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/6/2021 5:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:41:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/6/2021 12:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>> I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.
> >> All momentum is conserved, Stupid Ken.
> >
> > Moron, tangential momentum requires the continuous application of forces.
> No, it doesn't, Stupid Ken. Momentum is always conserved. Force
> transfers momentum between bodies. So continuous application of force
> would constantly change momentum.

Stupid moron Mike, continuously changing of tangential direction requires the existence of a continuous applied force.
>
> You really, really, really need to study a high school physics book.
> You won't, of course. That's why you are known as Stupid Ken, Stupid Ken.

On 5/7/2021 3:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 10:03:51 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 5/6/2021 5:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:41:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2021 12:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>>> I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.
>>>> All momentum is conserved, Stupid Ken.
>>>
>>> Moron, tangential momentum requires the continuous application of forces.
>> No, it doesn't, Stupid Ken. Momentum is always conserved. Force
>> transfers momentum between bodies. So continuous application of force
>> would constantly change momentum.
>
> Stupid moron Mike, continuously changing of tangential direction requires the existence of a continuous applied force.

In circular motion the tangential direction and speed is CONSTANT,
Stupid Ken! Remember, if you are talking about tangential forces,
momentum etc. you are using polar (or spherical) coordinates. Not x and
y. For the ball on a string, the angular (tangential) velocity is
constant so the angular acceleration is ZERO.

Actually "tangential direction" doesn't really make sense, since there
are just two ways around the circle: clockwise and counterclockwise.

Of course this isn't third grade math so you have no idea what I'm
talking about. So instead of learning, you made up your own (incorrect)
definition for "tangential".

>> You really, really, really need to study a high school physics book.
>> You won't, of course. That's why you are known as Stupid Ken, Stupid Ken.

Why won't you do that?

On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 6:34:27 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:41:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/6/2021 12:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 9:04:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Moron, the fingers need to impart tangential momentum to the ball so that
> >>>>>> ntrigual force and the > it can balance out the centripetal force
> >>>>>> exert by the string.
> >>>>>> No they don’t. Angular momentum is
> >>>>>> conserved. It does not need a force to
> >>>>>> maintain it. This is covered in high school physics, which you never
> >>>>>> learned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.
> >>>> All momentum is conserved, Stupid Ken.
> >>>
> >>> Moron, tangential momentum requires the continuous application of forces.
> >> Conservation of momentum says otherwise. Basic stuff.
> >
> > It’s basic stuff if the tangential direction of an object is continuously
> > changing there must be an applied force.
> We’ve been through all this several times.

So it is my false that you haven’t learn after been through several times?
>
> You are at the point where you are incapable of learning anything one day
> that you won’t forget the next.
> >
> >>>>> In any case the centrifugal force and the centripetal force give rise
> >>>>> to the tangential acceleration.
> >>>> Stupid Ken, centrifugal force (which isn't a force in inertial frames)
> >>>
> >>> Moron Mike we are not talking about inertial frame. BTW no inertiframe of
> >>> the aether.al frame exists on earth. The only inertial frame exist is the
> >>> rest frame of the aether.
> >>>
> >>>> and centripetal force are at right angles to tangential anything,
> >>> Moron, Centripetal acceleration in combination with centrifugal
> >>> acceleration gives tangential acceleration.
> >>>
> >>>> so
> >>>> they can't affect it! Also forces combine to produce other forces so
> >>>> you shouldn't be discussing tangential acceleration. All those science
> >>>> terms (force, momentum, acceleration) confuse you.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, 7 May 2021 at 22:36:22 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 5/7/2021 3:59 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 10:03:51 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 5/6/2021 5:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:41:17 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 5/6/2021 12:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> I said tangential momentum not angular momentum.
> >>>> All momentum is conserved, Stupid Ken.
> >>>
> >>> Moron, tangential momentum requires the continuous application of forces.
> >> No, it doesn't, Stupid Ken. Momentum is always conserved. Force
> >> transfers momentum between bodies. So continuous application of force
> >> would constantly change momentum.
> >
> > Stupid moron Mike, continuously changing of tangential direction requires the existence of a continuous applied force.
> In circular motion the tangential direction and speed is CONSTANT,
> Stupid Ken! Remember, if you are talking about tangential forces,
> momentum etc. you are using polar (or spherical) coordinates. Not x and
> y. For the ball on a string, the angular (tangential) velocity is
> constant so the angular acceleration is ZERO.
>
> Actually "tangential direction" doesn't really make sense, since there
> are just two ways around the circle: clockwise and counterclockwise.
>
> Of course this isn't third grade math so

So your idiot guru didn't have to announce it false.