On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
> >>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
> >>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
> >>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
> >>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
> >>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
> >>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
> >>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
> >>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
> >>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
> >>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I disagree.
> >>>>
> >>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
> >>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
> >>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
> >>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
> >>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
> >>>
> >>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
> >>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
> >> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
> >> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
> > Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
> > circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
> No, that’s not correct.
You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are two forces involved for any circular motion.
Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object in circular motion is wrong,That’s why physicists failed to explain the cause of gravity for 110 years . I discovered that the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit because:
1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a repulsive effect called the CRE force.
3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the above two opposing forces.
4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.

>Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?
> >
> >> In the real and no friction
> >> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
> >> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
> >> friction.
> >>
> >> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
> >>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
> >> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
> >> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example.
> >>
> >> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
> >> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
> >> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
>
>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move
>> in circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
>
> Evidence of that? Oh that's right, you just pulled it fresh out of your
> butt. That's not how science works, however. No wonder you are called
> Stupid Ken.

You come here often?

On 7/14/2021 7:50 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:10:20 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>>>>>
>>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string need
>>>>> not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
>>>> I just explained this to you. If there is no air friction on the object,
>>>> no, your fingers do not need to go around in a circle for the object to be
>>>> in uniform circular motion. Please notice there is no air friction on the
>>>> moon going around the earth, and there is no air friction for an electron
>>>> orbiting in a cyclotron at constant speed.
>>>>
>>>> The only reason your fingers go around in a circle for a rock whirled in
>>>> air is because the tension of the string has to have two perpendicular
>>>> components.
>>> .
>>> One of the component is due to the tangential acceleration of the object
>>> and the other is due to the centripetal acceleration of the string imparted on the object.
>> Nope. Tangential acceleration in the same direction as tangential velocity
>> would change the magnitude of that velocity, which would mean the speed
>> changes. But this is uniform circular motion, which is motion at constant
>> speed. Constant speed means no tangential acceleration.
>
> Gee there is no constant speed for an object in circular motion......it is constantly changing directions.

Stupid Ken, I already told you upthread you don't understand the
difference between speed and velocity. Speed does not have a direction.
Think of the SPEEDometer of a car driving around and around in a circle
at 30 mph. Its speedometer reads constant at 30 mph and doesn't change.
Obviously you mentally redefined many terms and your use of these
incorrect definitions has confused you.

LEARN the definitions of speed and velocity and learn why they are
different.

On 7/14/2021 6:58 AM, Ehren Feingold wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> On 7/13/2021 3:49 PM, Scott Landini wrote:
>>
>>
>>> fraudci and co *owns* you already, you stupid sheeple. What is been
>>> said from the beginning of the fake "corona", one and a ½ years ago.
>>
>> Go away, nymshifter. Take your ФСБ/ГРУ disinformation elsewhere, or at
>> least stick to the threads you've already successfully hijacked.
>
> your friend nymshifter is consistent, proved by your impertinence
> deleting the given peer-reviewed strong references.

Did I get your employer wrong, nymshifter? Is it the СВР instead? It
doesn't matter, either way Putin pulls your puppet strings, nymshifter.

On 7/14/2021 8:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>>>>>
>>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
>>>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
>>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
>>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
>>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
>>> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
>> No, that’s not correct.
> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are two forces involved for any circular motion.

It is irrelevant how the circular motion get started, there could be
multiple ways. The point is for constant speed circular motion of a
ball on a string, there is only one force, the centripetal force through
the string, just as Newton proved.

> Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object in circular motion is wrong,

Evidence? Remember, assertions are not evidence.

> That’s why physicists failed to explain the cause of gravity for 110 years .

Einstein's GR explains gravity.

> I discovered that the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit because:

You didn't "discover" anything. You only made a bunch of unsupported,
incorrect assertions.

> 1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.

Assertions are not evidence.

> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a repulsive effect called the CRE force.

Assertions are not evidence.

> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the above two opposing forces.

Assertions are not evidence.

> 4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.

Everyone ignores it (or laughs at it) because assertions aren't science.
Where is your experimental evidence and observations? Where are your
formulas showing these forces? Where are your predictions? Where are
your worked out problems? You have nothing but assertions. Of course
any physicist will ignore your insignificant blatherings.
>
>> Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
>> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
>> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?

No answer?

>>>> In the real and no friction
>>>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
>>>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
>>>> friction.
>>>>
>>>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.

No answer?

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object
>> in circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There
>> are two forces involved for any circular motion.
>
> It is irrelevant how the circular motion get started, there could be
> multiple ways. The point is for constant speed circular motion of a
> ball on a string, there is only one force, the centripetal force through
> the string, just as Newton proved.

your friend kenseto is consistent, one more time. If force, it implies
acceleration. How would you make it for the lose in deceleration due the
change in direction for that "constant" speed. It's constant anymore, is
it. You don't think. You have to move that finger circularly.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:10:20 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>>>>>
>>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string need
>>>>> not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
>>>> I just explained this to you. If there is no air friction on the object,
>>>> no, your fingers do not need to go around in a circle for the object to be
>>>> in uniform circular motion. Please notice there is no air friction on the
>>>> moon going around the earth, and there is no air friction for an electron
>>>> orbiting in a cyclotron at constant speed.
>>>>
>>>> The only reason your fingers go around in a circle for a rock whirled in
>>>> air is because the tension of the string has to have two perpendicular
>>>> components.
>>> .
>>> One of the component is due to the tangential acceleration of the object
>>> and the other is due to the centripetal acceleration of the string
>>> imparted on the object.
>> Nope. Tangential acceleration in the same
>>> direction as tangential velocity
>> would change the magnitude of that velocity, which would mean the speed
>> changes. But this is uniform circular motion, which is motion at constant
>> speed. Constant speed means no tangential acceleration.
>
> Gee there is no constant speed for an object in circular motion......it
> is constantly changing directions.

Well, it’s a shame you don’t know what the words mean. Speed is the scalar
magnitude of the velocity; speed has no direction. If the velocity changes
direction but its magnitude does not change, the speed is constant.

> Between the earth and the moon, the centripetal acceleration and the
> centrifugal acceleration work in tandem to give orbiting motion of the moon.

Again, you seem to be claiming that Resnick and Halliday are just wrong. Is
that true? Are you saying that all first year physics texts are wrong about
uniform circular motion?

>>
>> But as quoted to you, uniform circular motion also involves a change in
>> direction of the tangential velocity, which is an acceleration pointed
>> toward the center of the circle. Here there is nonzero acceleration even
>> though the speed is constant because the acceleration is perpendicular to
>> the velocity.
>
>
>>
>> I quoted you some relevant passages from a first year textbook. What about
>> those passages do you not understand?
>>>
>>>> One of the perpendicular components provides the unbalanced
>>>> centripetal force. Other other perpendicular force component opposes and
>>>> cancels the force of air friction. Note that perpendicular components of a
>>>> force cannot cancel each other ever; this is a vector property. This is
>>>> explained in Resnick and Halliday as well, if you had bothered to read it.
>>>>
>>>> Do I need to quote Resnick and Halliday for you on this point as well? Or
>>>> do you think you can open the book and read it? If not, why not?
>>>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
>>>>>
>>>>>> Odd has referred you to the relevant portion of H&R MANY MANY times so
>>>>>> far, which even has the ball-on-a-string as an example!
>>>>>>> Now you chicken shit sack of shit refuse to answer and tried to change
>>>>>>> the discussion to the definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>> YOU were the one who brought in the definition of centripetal
>>>>>> acceleration in question! Look at what you wrote!
>>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>>>>>
>>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
>>>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
>>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
>>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
>>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
>>> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
>> No, that’s not correct.
> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in
> circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion.

The term “uniform circular motion” which is what this discussion is about,
is what happens AFTER the object’s motion is started up. It is the case
where the speed is now constant. (Remember, the speed is constant, not the
velocity. You have to know what “speed” and “velocity” mean.)

> There are two forces involved for any circular motion.
> Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object
> in circular motion is wrong,That’s why physicists failed to explain the
> cause of gravity for 110 years . I discovered that the moon is able to
> maintain a stable orbit because:
> 1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from
> the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
> in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
> of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of
> the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a
> repulsive effect called the CRE force.
> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the
> above two opposing forces.
> 4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.
>
>> Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
>> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
>> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?
>>>
>>>> In the real and no friction
>>>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
>>>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
>>>> friction.
>>>>
>>>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
>>>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
>>>> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
>>>> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example.
>>>>
>>>> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
>>>> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
>>>> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>>>>>
>>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
>>>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
>>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
>>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
>>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
>>> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
>> No, that’s not correct.
> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in
> circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are
> two forces involved for any circular motion.
> Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object
> in circular motion is wrong,That’s why physicists failed to explain the
> cause of gravity for 110 years . I discovered that the moon is able to
> maintain a stable orbit because:
> 1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from
> the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
> in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
> of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of
> the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a
> repulsive effect called the CRE force.
> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the
> above two opposing forces.
> 4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.

You don’t think that the fact that you don’t know the difference between
speed and velocity has anything to do with why physicists ignore you?

>
>> Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
>> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
>> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?
>>>
>>>> In the real and no friction
>>>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
>>>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
>>>> friction.
>>>>
>>>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
>>>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
>>>> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
>>>> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example.
>>>>
>>>> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
>>>> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
>>>> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 1:59:42 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
> >>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
> >>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
> >>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
> >>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
> >>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
> >>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
> >>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
> >>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
> >>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I disagree.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
> >>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
> >>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
> >>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
> >>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
> >>>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
> >>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
> >>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
> >>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
> >>> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
> >> No, that’s not correct.
> > You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in
> > circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion.
> The term “uniform circular motion” which is what this discussion is about,
> is what happens AFTER the object’s motion is started up. It is the case
> where the speed is now constant. (Rem cause it is constantly changing in direction.ember, the speed is constant, not the
> velocity. You have to know what “speed” and “velocity” mean.)

To th object on the string it is experiencing constant acceleration because it is constantly changing in direction. To the guy holding the other end of the string, his fingers must maintain in circular motion to to keep the object in circular motion (applying the centrifugal force) to maintain the object in circular motion. Learn some basic physic......you cannot keep an object in circular motion without the application of two forces.

> > There are two forces involved for any circular motion.
> > Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object
> > in circular motion is wrong,That’s why physicists failed to explain the
> > cause of gravity for 110 years . I discovered that the moon is able to
> > maintain a stable orbit because:
> > 1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from
> > the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
> > in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
> > 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
> > of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of
> > the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a
> > repulsive effect called the CRE force.
> > 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the
> > above two opposing forces.
> > 4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.
> >
> >> Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
> >> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
> >> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?
> >>>
> >>>> In the real and no friction
> >>>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
> >>>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
> >>>> friction.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
> >>>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
> >>>> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
> >>>> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example..
> >>>>
> >>>> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
> >>>> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
> >>>> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 12:37:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/14/2021 8:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
> >>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
> >>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
> >>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
> >>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
> >>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
> >>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
> >>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
> >>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
> >>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I disagree.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
> >>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
> >>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
> >>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
> >>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
> >>>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
> >>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
> >>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
> >>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
> >>> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
> >> No, that’s not correct.
> > You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are two forces involved for any circular motion.
> It is irrelevant how the circular motion get started, there could be
> multiple ways. The point is for constant speed circular motion of a
> ball on a string, there is only one force, the centripetal force through
> the string, just as Newton proved.

Stupid moron Mike....if you let go of the string the ball will fly off in a tangential direction. Gee you are so fucking stupid.....no wonder your name is Moron-y.
> > Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object in circular motion is wrong,
> Evidence? Remember, assertions are not evidence.
> > That’s why physicists failed to explain the cause of gravity for 110 years .
> Einstein’s GR explains gravity.
No stupid moron Mike, he didn’t explain the cause of gravity.

> I discovered that the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit because:
> You didn't "discover" anything. You only made a bunch of unsupported,
> incorrect assertions.
> > 1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
> Assertions are not evidence.
> > 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a repulsive effect called the CRE force.
> Assertions are not evidence.
> > 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the above two opposing forces.
> Assertions are not evidence.
> > 4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.
> Everyone ignores it (or laughs at it) because assertions aren't science.
> Where is your experimental evidence and observations? Where are your
> formulas showing these forces? Where are your predictions? Where are
> your worked out problems? You have nothing but assertions. Of course
> any physicist will ignore your insignificant blatherings.
> >
> >> Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
> >> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
> >> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?
> No answer?
> >>>> In the real and no friction
> >>>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
> >>>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
> >>>> friction.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
> No answer?

On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 3:30:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
> >>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
> >>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
> >>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
> >>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
> >>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
> >>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
> >>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
> >>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
> >>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I disagree.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
> >>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
> >>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
> >>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
> >>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
> >>>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
> >>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
> >>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
> >>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
> >>> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
> >> No, that’s not correct.
> > You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in
> > circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are
> > two forces involved for any circular motion.
> > Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object
> > in circular motion is wrong,That’s why physicists failed to explain the
> > cause of gravity for 110 years . I discovered that the moon is able to
> > maintain a stable orbit because:
> > 1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from
> > the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
> > in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
> > 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
> > of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of
> > the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a
> > repulsive effect called the CRE force.
> > 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the
> > above two opposing forces.
> > 4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.
> You don’t think that the fact that you don’t know the difference between
> speed and velocity has anything to do with why physicists ignore you?

Moron, it is you who don’t know the difference between speed and velocity.
You think an object in circular motion is speed.
> >
> >> Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
> >> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
> >> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?
> >>>
> >>>> In the real and no friction
> >>>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
> >>>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
> >>>> friction.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
> >>>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
> >>>> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
> >>>> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example..
> >>>>
> >>>> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
> >>>> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
> >>>> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 1:59:42 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>>>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>>>>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>>>>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>>>>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>>>>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>>>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
>>>>>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
>>>>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
>>>>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
>>>>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
>>>>> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
>>>> No, that’s not correct.
>>> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in
>>> circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion.
>> The term “uniform circular motion” which is what this discussion is about,
>> is what happens AFTER the object’s motion is started up. It is the case
>> where the speed is now constant. (Rem cause it is constantly changing in
>> direction.ember, the speed is constant, not the
>> velocity. You have to know what “speed” and “velocity” mean.)
>
> To th object on the string it is experiencing constant acceleration
> because it is constantly changing in direction. To the guy holding the
> other end of the string, his fingers must maintain in circular motion to
> to keep the object in circular motion (applying the centrifugal force) to
> maintain the object in circular motion. Learn some basic physic......you
> cannot keep an object in circular motion without the application of two forces.

Ken, this is just babble. It bears no resemblance to the description that
is in first-year physics books like the one in Halliday and Resnick. Are
you saying that the description that is in first-year physics books is all
wrong?

>
>>> There are two forces involved for any circular motion.
>>> Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object
>>> in circular motion is wrong,That’s why physicists failed to explain the
>>> cause of gravity for 110 years . I discovered that the moon is able to
>>> maintain a stable orbit because:
>>> 1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from
>>> the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
>>> in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
>>> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
>>> of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of
>>> the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a
>>> repulsive effect called the CRE force.
>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the
>>> above two opposing forces.
>>> 4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.
>>>
>>>> Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
>>>> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
>>>> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the real and no friction
>>>>>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
>>>>>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
>>>>>> friction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
>>>>>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
>>>>>> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
>>>>>> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
>>>>>> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
>>>>>> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 3:30:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>>>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>>>>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>>>>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>>>>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>>>>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>>>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
>>>>>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
>>>>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
>>>>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
>>>>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
>>>>> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
>>>> No, that’s not correct.
>>> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in
>>> circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are
>>> two forces involved for any circular motion.
>>> Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object
>>> in circular motion is wrong,That’s why physicists failed to explain the
>>> cause of gravity for 110 years . I discovered that the moon is able to
>>> maintain a stable orbit because:
>>> 1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from
>>> the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
>>> in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
>>> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
>>> of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of
>>> the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a
>>> repulsive effect called the CRE force.
>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the
>>> above two opposing forces.
>>> 4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.
>> You don’t think that the fact that you don’t know the difference between
>> speed and velocity has anything to do with why physicists ignore you?
>
> Moron, it is you who don’t know the difference between speed and velocity.
> You think an object in circular motion is speed.

LOL, Ken. Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity. Speed does not have
direction, though velocity does. Did you know that?

>>>
>>>> Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
>>>> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
>>>> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the real and no friction
>>>>>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
>>>>>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
>>>>>> friction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
>>>>>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
>>>>>> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
>>>>>> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
>>>>>> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
>>>>>> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On 7/15/2021 8:40 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 12:37:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/14/2021 8:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are two forces involved for any circular motion.
>> It is irrelevant how the circular motion get started, there could be
>> multiple ways. The point is for constant speed circular motion of a
>> ball on a string, there is only one force, the centripetal force through
>> the string, just as Newton proved.
>
> Stupid moron Mike....if you let go of the string the ball will fly off in a tangential direction.

More correctly, Stupid Ken, the ball will fly off in a straight line
which is tangent to the original circle.

When that happens, the number of forces on the ball go from 1 (the
string's centripetal force) to 0. As in no force. Do you know enough
physics to remember what Newton said happens when there are no forces on
an object, Stupid Ken? No?

>>> That’s why physicists failed to explain the cause of gravity for 110 years .
>> Einstein’s GR explains gravity.
> No stupid moron Mike, he didn’t explain the cause of gravity.

He did, Stupid Ken. He said gravity is an apparent effect, a
pseudoforce, caused by curvature of spacetime. The objects are actually
moving straight along geodesics.

On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 1:38:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/15/2021 8:40 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 12:37:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 7/14/2021 8:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are two forces involved for any circular motion.
> >> It is irrelevant how the circular motion get started, there could be
> >> multiple ways. The point is for constant speed circular motion of a
> >> ball on a string, there is only one force, the centripetal force through
> >> the string, just as Newton proved.
> >
> > Stupid moron Mike....if you let go of the string the ball will fly off in a tangential direction.
> More correctly, Stupid Ken, the ball will fly off in a straight line
> which is tangent to the original circle.
>
> When that happens, the number of forces on the ball go from 1 (the
> string's centripetal force) to 0. As in no force. Do you know enough
> physics to remember what Newton said happens when there are no forces on
> an object, Stupid Ken? No?
> >>> That’s why physicists failed to explain the cause of gravity for 110 years .
> >> Einstein’s GR explains gravity.
> > No stupid moron Mike, he didn’t explain the cause of gravity.
> He did, Stupid Ken. He said gravity is an apparent effect, a
> pseudoforce, caused by curvature of spacetime. The objects are actually
> moving straight along geodesics.
Stupid moron Mike, that’s an assertion.....no physical cause.

On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 3:30:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >>>>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
> >>>>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
> >>>>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
> >>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
> >>>>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
> >>>>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
> >>>>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I disagree.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
> >>>>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
> >>>>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
> >>>>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
> >>>>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
> >>>>>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
> >>>>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
> >>>>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move..
> >>>>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
> >>>>> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid..
> >>>> No, that’s not correct.
> >>> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in
> >>> circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are
> >>> two forces involved for any circular motion.
> >>> Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object
> >>> in circular motion is wrong,That’s why physicists failed to explain the
> >>> cause of gravity for 110 years . I discovered that the moon is able to
> >>> maintain a stable orbit because:
> >>> 1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from
> >>> the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
> >>> in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
> >>> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
> >>> of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of
> >>> the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a
> >>> repulsive effect called the CRE force.
> >>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the
> >>> above two opposing forces.
> >>> 4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.
> >> You don’t think that the fact that you don’t know the difference between
> >> speed and velocity has anything to do with why physicists ignore you?
> >
> > Moron, it is you who don’t know the difference between speed and velocity.
> > You think an object in circular motion is speed.
> LOL, Ken. Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity. Speed does not have
> direction, though velocity does. Did you know now that hat?

Did you know that speed does not exist alone in curved paths? BTW, that why they call it velocity.
> >>>
> >>>> Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
> >>>> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
> >>>> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In the real and no friction
> >>>>>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
> >>>>>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
> >>>>>> friction.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
> >>>>>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
> >>>>>> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
> >>>>>> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
> >>>>>> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
> >>>>>> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 1:38:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/15/2021 8:40 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 12:37:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/2021 8:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>>> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object
>>>>> in circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There
>>>>> are two forces involved for any circular motion.
>>>> It is irrelevant how the circular motion get started, there could be
>>>> multiple ways. The point is for constant speed circular motion of a
>>>> ball on a string, there is only one force, the centripetal force through
>>>> the string, just as Newton proved.
>>>
>>> Stupid moron Mike....if you let go of the string the ball will fly off
>>> in a tangential direction.
>> More correctly, Stupid Ken, the ball will fly off in a straight line
>> which is tangent to the original circle.
>>
>> When that happens, the number of forces on the ball go from 1 (the
>> string's centripetal force) to 0. As in no force. Do you know enough
>> physics to remember what Newton said happens when there are no forces on
>> an object, Stupid Ken? No?
>>>>> That’s why physicists failed to explain the cause of gravity for 110 years .
>>>> Einstein’s GR explains gravity.
>>> No stupid moron Mike, he didn’t explain the cause of gravity.
>> He did, Stupid Ken. He said gravity is an apparent effect, a
>> pseudoforce, caused by curvature of spacetime. The objects are actually
>> moving straight along geodesics.
> Stupid moron Mike, that’s an assertion.....no physical cause.
>

Ken, you call anything you don’t understand an assertion, and anything you
do understand a physical cause.

What are you going to do with physical causes that you don’t understand?

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 3:30:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
>>>>>>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
>>>>>>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
>>>>>>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
>>>>>>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
>>>>>>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
>>>>>>>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
>>>>>>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
>>>>>>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
>>>>>>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
>>>>>>> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
>>>>>> No, that’s not correct.
>>>>> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in
>>>>> circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are
>>>>> two forces involved for any circular motion.
>>>>> Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object
>>>>> in circular motion is wrong,That’s why physicists failed to explain the
>>>>> cause of gravity for 110 years . I discovered that the moon is able to
>>>>> maintain a stable orbit because:
>>>>> 1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from
>>>>> the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
>>>>> in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
>>>>> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
>>>>> of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of
>>>>> the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a
>>>>> repulsive effect called the CRE force.
>>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the
>>>>> above two opposing forces.
>>>>> 4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.
>>>> You don’t think that the fact that you don’t know the difference between
>>>> speed and velocity has anything to do with why physicists ignore you?
>>>
>>> Moron, it is you who don’t know the difference between speed and velocity.
>>> You think an object in circular motion is speed.
>> LOL, Ken. Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity. Speed does not have
>> direction, though velocity does. Did you know now that hat?
>
> Did you know that speed does not exist alone in curved paths? BTW, that
> why they call it velocity.

Ken, you don’t know what these words “speed” and “velocity” mean. Halliday
and Resnick explain it. Speed doesn’t turn into velocity on curved paths.
Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity, on any kind of path.

Why would any physicist pay any attention to your ideas if you don’t even
know what “speed” and “velocity” mean?

>>>>>
>>>>>> Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
>>>>>> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
>>>>>> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the real and no friction
>>>>>>>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
>>>>>>>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
>>>>>>>> friction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
>>>>>>>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
>>>>>>>> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
>>>>>>>> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
>>>>>>>> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
>>>>>>>> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On 7/16/2021 10:04 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 3:30:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>> You don’t think that the fact that you don’t know the difference between
>>>>> speed and velocity has anything to do with why physicists ignore you?
>>>>
>>>> Moron, it is you who don’t know the difference between speed and velocity.
>>>> You think an object in circular motion is speed.
>>> LOL, Ken. Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity. Speed does not have
>>> direction, though velocity does. Did you know now that hat?
>>
>> Did you know that speed does not exist alone in curved paths? BTW, that
>> why they call it velocity.
>
> Ken, you don’t know what these words “speed” and “velocity” mean. Halliday
> and Resnick explain it. Speed doesn’t turn into velocity on curved paths.
> Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity, on any kind of path.
>
> Why would any physicist pay any attention to your ideas if you don’t even
> know what “speed” and “velocity” mean?
That's right, Stupid Ken. Speed is the magnitude, without any
direction. That's why a car has a speedometer and not a velocityometer.
It is also why they say the speed of light is c and not its velocity is
c. Light can go in any direction, so it can have many velocities, as
long as its speed is c.

On 7/16/2021 8:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 1:38:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/15/2021 8:40 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 12:37:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/2021 8:25 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>>> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are two forces involved for any circular motion.
>>>> It is irrelevant how the circular motion get started, there could be
>>>> multiple ways. The point is for constant speed circular motion of a
>>>> ball on a string, there is only one force, the centripetal force through
>>>> the string, just as Newton proved.
>>>
>>> Stupid moron Mike....if you let go of the string the ball will fly off in a tangential direction.
>> More correctly, Stupid Ken, the ball will fly off in a straight line
>> which is tangent to the original circle.
>>
>> When that happens, the number of forces on the ball go from 1 (the
>> string's centripetal force) to 0. As in no force. Do you know enough
>> physics to remember what Newton said happens when there are no forces on
>> an object, Stupid Ken? No?
>>>>> That’s why physicists failed to explain the cause of gravity for 110 years .
>>>> Einstein’s GR explains gravity.
>>> No stupid moron Mike, he didn’t explain the cause of gravity.
>> He did, Stupid Ken. He said gravity is an apparent effect, a
>> pseudoforce, caused by curvature of spacetime. The objects are actually
>> moving straight along geodesics.

> Stupid moron Mike, that’s an assertion.....no physical cause.

If you could understand his GR work you would know it's supported and
not assertions. You don't understand it so you call it an assertion.
What assertions are is what you do: Make something up and pretend that
it's true, like your Estrings or whatever.
>

On Friday, 16 July 2021 at 16:47:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> If you could understand his GR work you would know it's supported and
> not assertions.

Yet another assertion of stupid Mike.

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 10:41:52 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 7/16/2021 10:04 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 3:30:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>> You don’t think that the fact that you don’t know the difference between
> >>>>> speed and velocity has anything to do with why physicists ignore you?
> >>>>
> >>>> Moron, it is you who don’t know the difference between speed and velocity.
> >>>> You think an object in circular motion is speed.
> >>> LOL, Ken. Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity. Speed does not have
> >>> direction, though velocity does. Did you know now that hat?
> >>
> >> Did you know that speed does not exist alone in curved paths? BTW, that
> >> why they call it velocity.
> >
> > Ken, you don’t know what these words “speed” and “velocity” mean. Halliday
> > and Resnick explain it. Speed doesn’t turn into velocity on curved paths.
> > Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity, on any kind of path.
> >
> > Why would any physicist pay any attention to your ideas if you don’t even
> > know what “speed” and “velocity” mean?

That’s why they failed to come up with the cause of gravity after 110 years of trying.

> That's right, Stupid Ken. Speed is the magnitude, without any
> direction.

That’s right stupid moron Mike....that’s why they don’t express speed on a curved path. They express it a s velocity......gee you are stupid no wonder your name is Moron-y.
>That’s why a car has a speedometer and not a velour name is Moron-y.ityometer.
> It is also why they say the speed of light is c and not its velocity is
> c. Light can go in any direction, so it can have many velocities, as
> long as its speed is c.

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 10:04:14 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2021 at 3:30:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 4:51:56 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 5:48:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 4:29 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 1:36:16 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/12/2021 8:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 7:39 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 3:14:09 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, in addition to all your other mistakes, you don't know the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between "speed" and "velocity" in science. So, rather than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn, you made up your own definition. An object whirling at the end
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a string has a constant speed. It does not have a constant velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He claims others don’t understand what they read, and HE is the one that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t know what the words mean.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You don’t know what centripetal acceleration mean.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me guess, Stupid Ken. You just invented your very own definition of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "centripetal acceleration" because you don't know what the words mean,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and Odd doesn't know your definition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately for you, he does know the standard definition of it and he
> >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't care what your definition is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, I don’t have a my own definition of centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You and Odd claimed that centripetal acceleration alone can make an
> >>>>>>>>>>> object whirl around on the end of a string.
> >>>>>>>>>> With the standard definition of centripetal acceleration, that is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Because you don't understand the problem, or you have your own
> >>>>>>>>>> definition. You have created your very own, conflicting, definitions
> >>>>>>>>>> many times before, Stupid Ken. And with your math abilities limited to
> >>>>>>>>>> the third grade level, you'll never understand the problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>> So I asked you and Odd how.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So according to you: The fingers holding the other end of the string
> >>>>>>>>> need not to be in circular motion to make the object to go around in circle?
> >>>>>>>> In an ideal situation (no air resistance, no "bearing" friction of the
> >>>>>>>> string on the finger): No, the finger doesn’t need to move.
> >>>>>>> Idiot no air resistance and no friction the fingers still have to move in
> >>>>>>> circles to make the object go around in circles. gee you are stupid.
> >>>>>> No, that’s not correct.
> >>>>> You are wrong. Even in outer space you still have to start the object in
> >>>>> circular motion before it is maintained in circular motion. There are
> >>>>> two forces involved for any circular motion.
> >>>>> Your keep on saying that only centripetal acceleration can keep an object
> >>>>> in circular motion is wrong,That’s why physicists failed to explain the
> >>>>> cause of gravity for 110 years . I discovered that the moon is able to
> >>>>> maintain a stable orbit because:
> >>>>> 1. There is an attractive EM between the earth and the moon derived from
> >>>>> the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding in the same direction
> >>>>> in the E-Matrix as the universe is expanding.
> >>>>> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
> >>>>> of the E-Matrix because all matters are formed by the orbiting motion of
> >>>>> the S-Particles around the divergent E-Strings. This give rise to a
> >>>>> repulsive effect called the CRE force.
> >>>>> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the combined result of the
> >>>>> above two opposing forces.
> >>>>> 4. My discovery is significant and I failed to see why physicist are ignoring it.
> >>>> You don’t think that the fact that you don’t know the difference between
> >>>> speed and velocity has anything to do with why physicists ignore you?
> >>>
> >>> Moron, it is you who don’t know the difference between speed and velocity.
> >>> You think an object in circular motion is speed.
> >> LOL, Ken. Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity. Speed does not have
> >> direction, though velocity does. Did you know now that hat?
> >
> > Did you know that speed does not exist alone in curved paths? BTW, that
> > why they call it velocity.
> Ken, you don’t know what these words “speed” and “velocity” mean. Halliday
> and Resnick explain it. Speed doesn’t turn into velocity on curved paths.
> Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity, on any kind of path.
There is no constant speed in any curved path.

> Why would any physicist pay any attention to your ideas if you don’t even
> know what “speed” and “velocity” mean?

That;s why they (physicists) failed to come up with the cause of gravity after 110 years of trying.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Resnick and Halliday specifically talk about this
> >>>>>> in chapter 6. Are you saying they are wrong that with no friction and air
> >>>>>> resistance, the pivot at the other end of the string does not move?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In the real and no friction
> >>>>>>>> world (air resistance, friction of string and finger, earth's gravity
> >>>>>>>> pulling everything down): The fingers need to move to counteract the
> >>>>>>>> friction.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Does a feather fall at the same rate as a lead weight? Explain your answer.
> >>>>>>>>> No wonder you can’t solve (-6/-2).
> >>>>>>>> You know, Stupid Ken, someone needs to edit the wikipedia article on
> >>>>>>>> Psychological Projection and add your photograph to it as an example.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Better yet, you should get a job as poster boy for Psychological
> >>>>>>>> Projection and you can waste your income from that printing more of your
> >>>>>>>> books. They'll come in handy if there's another toilet paper shortage.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 7/16/2021 12:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 10:41:52 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 7/16/2021 10:04 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>> Ken, you don’t know what these words “speed” and “velocity” mean. Halliday
>>> and Resnick explain it. Speed doesn’t turn into velocity on curved paths.
>>> Speed is the scalar magnitude of velocity, on any kind of path.
>>>
>>> Why would any physicist pay any attention to your ideas if you don’t even
>>> know what “speed” and “velocity” mean?
>
> That’s why they failed to come up with the cause of gravity after 110 years of trying.

Are you claiming that scientists didn't find a cause of gravity because
you are too stupid to understand the difference between “speed” and
“velocity”?? That's really stupid, even for you, Stupid Ken!
>
>> That's right, Stupid Ken. Speed is the magnitude, without any
>> direction.
>
> That’s right stupid moron Mike....that’s why they don’t express speed on a curved path.

But they do when the direction isn't relevant.

Think of a car driving around and around a traffic circle at 30 mph.
What does its SPEEDometer read? It reads a constant 30 mph, which is
the car's SPEED.

> They express it a s velocity......

When necessary. A car's SPEEDometer always displays its speed, not
velocity, even if driving in circles. I know that you are probably too
demented to still be able to drive, but you do remember what a
speedometer is and what it does, right?
gee you are stupid no wonder your name is Moron-y.
>> That’s why a car has a speedometer and not a velour name is Moron-y.ityometer.

What's that nonsense?

>> It is also why they say the speed of light is c and not its velocity is
>> c. Light can go in any direction, so it can have many velocities, as
>> long as its speed is c.

No comment? Why don't scientists discuss the velocity of light?