On Friday, 16 July 2021 at 20:18:56 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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.

Stupid Mike, have you ever heard of relativity? Yhe SPEED
is (according to your idiot gurus) an observer-dependent
quantity.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Resnick and Halliday, Chapter 4:
“For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed, called uniform
circular motion, the velocity vector changes continually in direction but
not in magnitude.”

First-year textbooks say that uniform circular motion is an example of
motion in a curved path at constant speed, something you say is impossible.

Are you saying that all first-year physics textbooks are wrong?

>
>> 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.

The cause of gravity is explained in GR.

Do you think any physicist is going to explain that cause to someone who
doesn’t know the difference between speed and velocity, who doesn’t know
that constant speed in a curved path is common?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 Friday, July 16, 2021 at 4:18:55 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> Resnick and Halliday, Chapter 4:
> “For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed, called uniform
> circular motion, the velocity vector changes continually in direction but
> not in magnitude.”
>
> First-year textbooks
> say that uniform circular motion is an example of
> motion in a curved path at constant speed, something you say is impossible.

Speed of an object is observer dependent. Therefore it cannot be used to describe gravity.
>
> Are you saying that all first-year physics textbooks are wrong?
> >
> >> 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.
> The cause of gravity is explained in GR.

An equation that describes the observed curve is not the cause of gravity.
>
> Do you think any physicist is going to explain that cause to someone who
> doesn’t know the difference between speed and velocity, who doesn’t know
> that constant speed in a curved path is common?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 4:18:55 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Resnick and Halliday, Chapter 4:
>> “For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed, called uniform
>> circular motion, the velocity vector changes continually in direction but
>> not in magnitude.”
>>
>> First-year textbooks
>> say that uniform circular motion is an example of
>> motion in a curved path at constant speed, something you say is impossible.
>
> Speed of an object is observer dependent. Therefore it cannot be used to describe gravity.

So you disagree with first year physics textbooks.

>>
>> Are you saying that all first-year physics textbooks are wrong?
>>>
>>>> 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.
>> The cause of gravity is explained in GR.
>
> An equation that describes the observed curve is not the cause of gravity.

On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
> >>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
> >>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
> >>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
> >>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
> >>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
> >>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
> >>>>
> >>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration..
> >>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:

I disagree with their model
>
> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
> not in direction.
That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether) which is not straight.

>For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,

That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity. That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
>
> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
> direction but not in magnitude….
>
Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
>
> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration. So no speed involvedThe
> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
> of the circle.
>
> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
>
> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
> the speed is constant.
>
> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
> and math and everything.

Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model. My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and you described gravity with constant straight speed.

>
> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
>
> I disagree with their model

And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
with first-year physics.

Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
difference between speed and velocity.

First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.

You never learned first-year physics.

Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?

>>
>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
>> not in direction.
> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether) which is not straight.
>
>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
>
> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
>>
>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
>> direction but not in magnitude….
>>
> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
>>
>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
>> So no speed involvedThe
>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
>> of the circle.
>>
>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
>>
>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
>> the speed is constant.
>>
>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
>> and math and everything.
>
> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.

Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?

> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
>
>>
>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
>

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

On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
> >>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
> >>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
> >>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
> >>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
> >>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
> >>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
> >> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
> >
> > I disagree with their model
> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
> with first-year physics.
>
> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
> difference between speed and velocity.
> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.

Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
>
> You never learned first-year physics.
>
> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
> >>
> >> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
> >> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
> >> not in direction.
> > That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether) which is not straight.
> >
> >> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
> >
> > That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
> > straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
> > That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
> >>
> >> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
> >> direction but not in magnitude….
> >>
> > Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
> >>
> >> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
> >> So no speed involvedThe
> >> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
> >> of the circle.
> >>
> >> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
> >> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
> >> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
> >> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
> >> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
> >> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
> >> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
> >> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
> >>
> >> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
> >> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
> >> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
> >> the speed is constant.
> >>
> >> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
> >> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
> >> and math and everything.
> >
> > Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right

Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.

> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
> > My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
> > that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
> > you described gravity with constant straight speed.
> >
> >>
> >> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
> >> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
> > Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
>>>
>>> I disagree with their model
>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
>> with first-year physics.
>>
>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
>> difference between speed and velocity.
>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
>
> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.

Then you disagree with first-year physics.

>>
>> You never learned first-year physics.
>>
>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
>>>>
>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
>>>> not in direction.
>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
>>> which is not straight.
>>>
>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
>>>
>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
>>>>
>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
>>>>
>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
>>>>
>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
>>>> So no speed involvedThe
>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
>>>> of the circle.
>>>>
>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
>>>>
>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
>>>> the speed is constant.
>>>>
>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
>>>> and math and everything.
>>>
>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
>
> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.

It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.

And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.

Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
first-year physics is all wrong?

And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
from one day to the next?

You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.

>
>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
> >>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
> >>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
> >>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
> >>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
> >>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
> >>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
> >>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
> >>>
> >>> I disagree with their model
> >> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
> >> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
> >> with first-year physics.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
> >> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
> >> difference between speed and velocity.
> >> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
> >> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
> >
> > Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>
I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
>
> >>
> >> You never learned first-year physics.
> >>

> >> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
> >>>>
> >>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
> >>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
> >>>> not in direction.
> >>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
> >>> which is not straight.
> >>>
> >>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
> >>>
> >>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
> >>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
> >>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity..
> >>>>
> >>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
> >>>> direction but not in magnitude….
> >>>>
> >>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
> >>>>
> >>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
> >>>> So no speed involvedThe
> >>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
> >>>> of the circle.
> >>>>
> >>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
> >>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
> >>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
> >>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
> >>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
> >>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
> >>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
> >>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
> >>>>
> >>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
> >>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
> >>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
> >>>> the speed is constant.
> >>>>
> >>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
> >>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
> >>>> and math and everything.
> >>>
> >>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
> >> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
> >
> > Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
> > conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
>
> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters..
>
> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
> first-year physics is all wrong?
>
> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
> from one day to the next?
>
> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
> >
> >> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
> >> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
> >>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
> >>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
> >>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
> >>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
> >>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree with their model
>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
>>>> with first-year physics.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
>>>
>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>
> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.

Then you disagree with first-year physics.

That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
You never will at your age and your inabilities.

Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
you’ve never learned first year physics?

>>
>>>>
>>>> You never learned first-year physics.
>>>>
>
>>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
>>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
>>>>>> not in direction.
>>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
>>>>> which is not straight.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
>>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
>>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
>>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
>>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
>>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
>>>>>> of the circle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
>>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
>>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
>>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
>>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
>>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
>>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
>>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
>>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
>>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
>>>>>> the speed is constant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
>>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
>>>>>> and math and everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
>>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
>>>
>>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
>>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
>> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
>>
>> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
>>
>> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
>> first-year physics is all wrong?
>>
>> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
>> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
>> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
>> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
>> from one day to the next?
>>
>> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
>> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
>>>
>>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
>>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
>>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
>>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
>>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
>>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
>>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
> >>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I disagree with their model
> >>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
> >>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
> >>>> with first-year physics.
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
> >>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
> >>>> difference between speed and velocity.
> >>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
> >>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
> >>>
> >>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
> >> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> >>
> > I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
>
> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
> You never will at your age and your inabilities.

How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity? Because he can’t !!!
Instead he use curved spacetime.
>
> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
> you’ve never learned first year physics?
They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong. For example: constant
speed to explain gravity.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> You never learned first-year physics.
> >>>>
> >
> >>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
> >>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
> >>>>>> not in direction.
> >>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
> >>>>> which is not straight.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
> >>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
> >>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
> >>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
> >>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
> >>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
> >>>>>> of the circle.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
> >>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
> >>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
> >>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
> >>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
> >>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
> >>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
> >>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
> >>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
> >>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
> >>>>>> the speed is constant.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
> >>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
> >>>>>> and math and everything.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
> >>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
> >>>
> >>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
> >>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
> >> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
> >>
> >> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
> >>
> >> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
> >> first-year physics is all wrong?
> >>
> >> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
> >> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
> >> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
> >> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
> >> from one day to the next?
> >>
> >> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
> >> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
> >>>
> >>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
> >>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
> >>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
> >>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
> >>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
> >>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
> >>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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 Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
>>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree with their model
>>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
>>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
>>>>>> with first-year physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
>>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
>>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
>>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
>>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>
>>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
>>
>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
>> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
>
> How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity? Because he can’t !!!
> Instead he use curved spacetime.
>>
>> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
>> you’ve never learned first year physics?
> They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong. For example: constant
> speed to explain gravity.

And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.

>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You never learned first-year physics.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
>>>>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
>>>>>>>> not in direction.
>>>>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
>>>>>>> which is not straight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
>>>>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
>>>>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
>>>>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
>>>>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
>>>>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
>>>>>>>> of the circle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
>>>>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
>>>>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
>>>>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
>>>>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
>>>>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
>>>>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
>>>>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
>>>>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
>>>>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
>>>>>>>> the speed is constant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
>>>>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
>>>>>>>> and math and everything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
>>>>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
>>>>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
>>>> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
>>>>
>>>> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
>>>> first-year physics is all wrong?
>>>>
>>>> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
>>>> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
>>>> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
>>>> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
>>>> from one day to the next?
>>>>
>>>> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
>>>> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
>>>>>
>>>>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
>>>>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
>>>>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
>>>>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
>>>>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
>>>>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
>>>>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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 Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and he’d just crap his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
> >>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I disagree with their model
> >>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
> >>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
> >>>>>> with first-year physics.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
> >>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
> >>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
> >>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
> >>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
> >>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> >>>>
> >>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
> >>
> >> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> >> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
> >> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
> >
> > How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity? Because he can’t !!!
> > Instead he use curved spacetime.
> >>
> >> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
> >> you’ve never learned first year physics?
> > They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong. For example: constant
> > speed to explain gravity.
> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.

First year physics is wrong by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity. It appears that you don’t understand physics.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You never learned first-year physics.
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
> >>>>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
> >>>>>>>> not in direction.
> >>>>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
> >>>>>>> which is not straight.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
> >>>>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
> >>>>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
> >>>>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
> >>>>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
> >>>>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
> >>>>>>>> of the circle.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
> >>>>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
> >>>>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
> >>>>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
> >>>>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
> >>>>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward.. Because
> >>>>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
> >>>>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
> >>>>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
> >>>>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
> >>>>>>>> the speed is constant.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
> >>>>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
> >>>>>>>> and math and everything.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
> >>>>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
> >>>>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
> >>>> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
> >>>>
> >>>> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
> >>>> first-year physics is all wrong?
> >>>>
> >>>> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
> >>>> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
> >>>> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
> >>>> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
> >>>> from one day to the next?
> >>>>
> >>>> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
> >>>> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
> >>>>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
> >>>>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
> >>>>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
> >>>>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
> >>>>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
> >>>>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
>>>>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I disagree with their model
>>>>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
>>>>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
>>>>>>>> with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
>>>>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
>>>>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
>>>>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
>>>>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>
>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
>>>> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
>>>
>>> How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity? Because he can’t !!!
>>> Instead he use curved spacetime.
>>>>
>>>> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
>>>> you’ve never learned first year physics?
>>> They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong.
>>> For example: constant
>>> speed to explain gravity.
>> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
>> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
>> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.
>
> First year physics is wrong

And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
That, and you don’t know what the words mean.
You don’t even know what speed means.
You don’t know what acceleration means.
You don’t know what displacement means.
Chapter 2 terms.

> by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity. It appears that
> you don’t understand physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You never learned first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
>>>>>>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
>>>>>>>>>> not in direction.
>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
>>>>>>>>> which is not straight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
>>>>>>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
>>>>>>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
>>>>>>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
>>>>>>>>>> of the circle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
>>>>>>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
>>>>>>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
>>>>>>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
>>>>>>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
>>>>>>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
>>>>>>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
>>>>>>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
>>>>>>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
>>>>>>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
>>>>>>>>>> the speed is constant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
>>>>>>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
>>>>>>>>>> and math and everything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
>>>>>>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
>>>>>>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
>>>>>> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
>>>>>> first-year physics is all wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
>>>>>> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
>>>>>> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
>>>>>> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
>>>>>> from one day to the next?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
>>>>>> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
>>>>>>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
>>>>>>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
>>>>>>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
>>>>>>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
>>>>>>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 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 Monday, July 26, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really tried.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he’d just crap his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved.. Sad.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
> >>>>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I disagree with their model
> >>>>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
> >>>>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
> >>>>>>>> with first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
> >>>>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
> >>>>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
> >>>>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
> >>>>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
> >>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> >>>> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
> >>>> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
> >>>
> >>> How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity? Because he can’t !!!
> >>> Instead he use curved spacetime.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
> >>>> you’ve never learned first year physics?
> >>> They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong.
> >>> For example: constant
> >>> speed to explain gravity.
> >> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
> >> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
> >> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.
> >
> > First year physics is wrong
>
You are a liar. My complete sentence is as follows: First year physics is wrong by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity. It appears that you don’t understand physics.
>
> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
> That, and you don’t know what the words mean.
> You don’t even know what speed means.
> You don’t know what acceleration means.
> You don’t know what displacement means.
> Chapter 2 terms.
> > by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity. It appears that
> > you don’t understand physics.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You never learned first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
> >>>>>>>>>> not in direction.
> >>>>>>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
> >>>>>>>>> which is not straight.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
> >>>>>>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
> >>>>>>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
> >>>>>>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
> >>>>>>>>>> of the circle.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
> >>>>>>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
> >>>>>>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
> >>>>>>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
> >>>>>>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
> >>>>>>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
> >>>>>>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
> >>>>>>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
> >>>>>>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
> >>>>>>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
> >>>>>>>>>> the speed is constant.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
> >>>>>>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
> >>>>>>>>>> and math and everything.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
> >>>>>>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
> >>>>>>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
> >>>>>> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
> >>>>>> first-year physics is all wrong?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
> >>>>>> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
> >>>>>> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
> >>>>>> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
> >>>>>> from one day to the next?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
> >>>>>> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
> >>>>>>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
> >>>>>>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
> >>>>>>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
> >>>>>>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
> >>>>>>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
> >>>>>>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with their model
>>>>>>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
>>>>>>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
>>>>>>>>>> with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
>>>>>>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
>>>>>>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
>>>>>>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
>>>>>>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>>> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
>>>>>> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity?
>>>>> Because he can’t !!!
>>>>> Instead he use curved spacetime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
>>>>>> you’ve never learned first year physics?
>>>>> They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong.
>>>>> For example: constant
>>>>> speed to explain gravity.
>>>> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
>>>> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
>>>> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.
>>>
>>> First year physics is wrong
>>
> You are a liar. My complete sentence is as follows: First year physics is
> wrong by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity.

And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.

You don’t even know what the words mean.

You don’t know what speed means.

You don’t know what acceleration means.

You don’t know what displacement means.

Those are Chapter 2 terms, and you can’t get through Chapter 2.

> It appears that you don’t understand physics.
>>
>> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
>> That, and you don’t know what the words mean.
>> You don’t even know what speed means.
>> You don’t know what acceleration means.
>> You don’t know what displacement means.
>> Chapter 2 terms.
>>> by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity. It appears that
>>> you don’t understand physics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You never learned first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> not in direction.
>>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
>>>>>>>>>>> which is not straight.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
>>>>>>>>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
>>>>>>>>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
>>>>>>>>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
>>>>>>>>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
>>>>>>>>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
>>>>>>>>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
>>>>>>>>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
>>>>>>>>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
>>>>>>>>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
>>>>>>>>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
>>>>>>>>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed is constant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
>>>>>>>>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
>>>>>>>>>>>> and math and everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
>>>>>>>>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
>>>>>>>>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
>>>>>>>> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
>>>>>>>> first-year physics is all wrong?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
>>>>>>>> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
>>>>>>>> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
>>>>>>>> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
>>>>>>>> from one day to the next?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
>>>>>>>> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
>>>>>>>>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
>>>>>>>>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
>>>>>>>>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
>>>>>>>>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
>>>>>>>>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 7:48:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he’d just crap his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a string.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with their model
> >>>>>>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
> >>>>>>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
> >>>>>>>>>> with first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
> >>>>>>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
> >>>>>>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
> >>>>>>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> >>>>>> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
> >>>>>> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity?
> >>>>> Because he can’t !!!
> >>>>> Instead he use curved spacetime.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
> >>>>>> you’ve never learned first year physics?
> >>>>> They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong..
> >>>>> For example: constant
> >>>>> speed to explain gravity.
> >>>> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
> >>>> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics..
> >>>> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.
> >>>
> >>> First year physics is wrong
> >>
> > You are a liar. My complete sentence is as follows: First year physics is
> > wrong by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity.
> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
> You don’t even know what the words mean.

Yeah, I am being ignored because physicists are too embarrassed to admit their mistakes. BTW that’s the reason why they can’t find the cause of gravity after 110 years of trying.
>
> You don’t know what speed means.
> You don’t know what acceleration means.
>
> You don’t know what displacement means.
> Those are Chapter 2 terms, and you can’t get through Chapter 2.
> > It appears that you don’t understand physics.
> >>
> >> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
> >> That, and you don’t know what the words mean.
> >> You don’t even know what speed means.
> >> You don’t know what acceleration means.
> >> You don’t know what displacement means.
> >> Chapter 2 terms.
> >>> by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity. It appears that
> >>> you don’t understand physics.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You never learned first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not in direction.
> >>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
> >>>>>>>>>>> which is not straight.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
> >>>>>>>>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has no constant speed .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
> >>>>>>>>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of the circle.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
> >>>>>>>>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
> >>>>>>>>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
> >>>>>>>>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
> >>>>>>>>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the speed is constant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and math and everything.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model..
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
> >>>>>>>>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
> >>>>>>>> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
> >>>>>>>> first-year physics is all wrong?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
> >>>>>>>> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
> >>>>>>>> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
> >>>>>>>> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
> >>>>>>>> from one day to the next?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
> >>>>>>>> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
> >>>>>>>>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
> >>>>>>>>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
> >>>>>>>>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
> >>>>>>>>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
> >>>>>>>>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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 27, 2021 at 7:48:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with their model
>>>>>>>>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
>>>>>>>>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
>>>>>>>>>>>> with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
>>>>>>>>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
>>>>>>>>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
>>>>>>>> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity?
>>>>>>> Because he can’t !!!
>>>>>>> Instead he use curved spacetime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
>>>>>>>> you’ve never learned first year physics?
>>>>>>> They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong.
>>>>>>> For example: constant
>>>>>>> speed to explain gravity.
>>>>>> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
>>>>>> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
>>>>>> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.
>>>>>
>>>>> First year physics is wrong
>>>>
>>> You are a liar. My complete sentence is as follows: First year physics is
>>> wrong by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity.
>> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
>> You don’t even know what the words mean.
>
> Yeah, I am being ignored because physicists are too embarrassed to admit their mistakes.

Mistakes in Chapter 2 of first year physics, right? This is what you’re
saying.

You’re saying that the meaning of speed is wrong, and the correct meaning
of speed makes it impossible for curved motion to have it.

This is all so deliciously silly, Ken. You’re a right goofball, you are.

> BTW that’s the reason why they can’t find the cause of gravity after 110 years of trying.
>>
>> You don’t know what speed means.
>> You don’t know what acceleration means.
>>
>> You don’t know what displacement means.
>> Those are Chapter 2 terms, and you can’t get through Chapter 2.
>>> It appears that you don’t understand physics.
>>>>
>>>> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
>>>> That, and you don’t know what the words mean.
>>>> You don’t even know what speed means.
>>>> You don’t know what acceleration means.
>>>> You don’t know what displacement means.
>>>> Chapter 2 terms.
>>>>> by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity. It appears that
>>>>> you don’t understand physics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You never learned first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in direction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is not straight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no constant speed .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed is constant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and math and everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
>>>>>>>>>>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
>>>>>>>>>> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
>>>>>>>>>> first-year physics is all wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
>>>>>>>>>> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
>>>>>>>>>> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
>>>>>>>>>> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
>>>>>>>>>> from one day to the next?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
>>>>>>>>>> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
>>>>>>>>>>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On 7/27/2021 8:01 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 7:48:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>>> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
>>>>>> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
>>>>>> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.
>>>>>
>>>>> First year physics is wrong
>>>>
>>> You are a liar. My complete sentence is as follows: First year physics is
>>> wrong by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity.
>> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
>> You don’t even know what the words mean.
>
> Yeah, I am being ignored because physicists are too embarrassed to admit their mistakes.

You are being ignored because you don't even understand first year
physics. You don't even understand fourth grade math so that will never
change.

> BTW that’s the reason why they can’t find the cause of gravity after 110 years of trying.

Stupid Ken, Einstein gave the cause of gravity as the curvature of
spacetime over 100 years ago.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 7:48:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with their model
>>>>>>>>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
>>>>>>>>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
>>>>>>>>>>>> with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
>>>>>>>>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
>>>>>>>>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
>>>>>>>> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity?
>>>>>>> Because he can’t !!!
>>>>>>> Instead he use curved spacetime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
>>>>>>>> you’ve never learned first year physics?
>>>>>>> They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong.
>>>>>>> For example: constant
>>>>>>> speed to explain gravity.
>>>>>> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
>>>>>> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
>>>>>> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.
>>>>>
>>>>> First year physics is wrong
>>>>
>>> You are a liar. My complete sentence is as follows: First year physics is
>>> wrong by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity.
>> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
>> You don’t even know what the words mean.
>
> Yeah, I am being ignored because physicists are too embarrassed to admit
> their mistakes. BTW that’s the reason why they can’t find the cause of
> gravity after 110 years of trying.

Speaking of being embarrassed, Ken, are you too embarrassed to admit that
you don’t know what speed means?

>>
>> You don’t know what speed means.
>> You don’t know what acceleration means.
>>
>> You don’t know what displacement means.
>> Those are Chapter 2 terms, and you can’t get through Chapter 2.
>>> It appears that you don’t understand physics.
>>>>
>>>> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
>>>> That, and you don’t know what the words mean.
>>>> You don’t even know what speed means.
>>>> You don’t know what acceleration means.
>>>> You don’t know what displacement means.
>>>> Chapter 2 terms.
>>>>> by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity. It appears that
>>>>> you don’t understand physics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You never learned first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in direction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is not straight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no constant speed .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed is constant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and math and everything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
>>>>>>>>>>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
>>>>>>>>>> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
>>>>>>>>>> first-year physics is all wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
>>>>>>>>>> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
>>>>>>>>>> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
>>>>>>>>>> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
>>>>>>>>>> from one day to the next?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
>>>>>>>>>> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
>>>>>>>>>>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 8:09:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 7:48:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he’d just crap his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with their model
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
> >>>>>>>> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity?
> >>>>>>> Because he can’t !!!
> >>>>>>> Instead he use curved spacetime.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
> >>>>>>>> you’ve never learned first year physics?
> >>>>>>> They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong.
> >>>>>>> For example: constant
> >>>>>>> speed to explain gravity.
> >>>>>> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
> >>>>>> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
> >>>>>> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First year physics is wrong
> >>>>
> >>> You are a liar. My complete sentence is as follows: First year physics is
> >>> wrong by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity.
> >> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
> >> You don’t even know what the words mean. gravity is wrong.
> >
> > Yeah, I am being ignored because physicists are too embarrassed to admit their mistakes.
> Mistakes in Chapter 2 of first year physics, right? This is what you’re
> saying.
>
> You’re saying that the meaning of speed is wrong, and the correct meaning
> of speed makes it impossible for curved motion to have it.

No moron, I was saying that speed use to explain gravity is wrong.
>
> This is all so deliciously silly, Ken. You’re a right goofball, you are.
> > BTW that’s the reason why they can’t find the cause of gravity after 110 years of trying.
> >>
> >> You don’t know what speed means.
> >> You don’t know what acceleration means.
> >>
> >> You don’t know what displacement means.
> >> Those are Chapter 2 terms, and you can’t get through Chapter 2..
> >>> It appears that you don’t understand physics.
> >>>>
> >>>> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
> >>>> That, and you don’t know what the words mean.
> >>>> You don’t even know what speed means.
> >>>> You don’t know what acceleration means.
> >>>> You don’t know what displacement means.
> >>>> Chapter 2 terms.
> >>>>> by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity. It appears that
> >>>>> you don’t understand physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You never learned first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in direction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is not straight.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> no constant speed .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the circle.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed is constant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and math and everything.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
> >>>>>>>>>>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
> >>>>>>>>>> first-year physics is all wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
> >>>>>>>>>> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
> >>>>>>>>>> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
> >>>>>>>>>> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
> >>>>>>>>>> from one day to the next?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
> >>>>>>>>>> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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 Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 7:48:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he’d just crap his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with their model
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
> >>>>>>>> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity?
> >>>>>>> Because he can’t !!!
> >>>>>>> Instead he use curved spacetime.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
> >>>>>>>> you’ve never learned first year physics?
> >>>>>>> They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong.
> >>>>>>> For example: constant
> >>>>>>> speed to explain gravity.
> >>>>>> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
> >>>>>> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
> >>>>>> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First year physics is wrong
> >>>>
> >>> You are a liar. My complete sentence is as follows: First year physics is
> >>> wrong by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity.
> >> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
> >> You don’t even know what the words mean.
> >
> > Yeah, I am being ignored because physicists are too embarrassed to admit
> > their mistakes. BTW that’s the reason why they can’t find the cause of
> > gravity after 110 years of trying.
> Speaking of being embarrassed, Ken, are you too embarrassed to admit that
> you don’t know what speed means?

Moron, it is you who don’t know what speed mean.
> >>
> >> You don’t know what speed means.
> >> You don’t know what acceleration means.
> >>
> >> You don’t know what displacement means.
> >> Those are Chapter 2 terms, and you can’t get through Chapter 2..
> >>> It appears that you don’t understand physics.
> >>>>
> >>>> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
> >>>> That, and you don’t know what the words mean.
> >>>> You don’t even know what speed means.
> >>>> You don’t know what acceleration means.
> >>>> You don’t know what displacement means.
> >>>> Chapter 2 terms.
> >>>>> by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity. It appears that
> >>>>> you don’t understand physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You never learned first-year physics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it any wonder you’re a laughingstock in a home for the infirm?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> “In Section 3-6 we saw that acceleration arises from a change in velocity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the simple case of free fall the velocity changed in magnitude only, but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not in direction.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong free fall follows the geometries of space (the ether)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is not straight.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For a particle moving in a circle with constant speed,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s wrong, free fall in a gravitational field is not constant or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> straight. Also constant speed cannot not be used to describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why Einstein used curved spacetime to describe gravity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> called uniform circular motion, the velocity vector changes continuously in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction but not in magnitude….
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not changing in magnitude (speed) wrt what? Curved path has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> no constant speed .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> “We therefore obtain [a = v^2/r] as the magnitude of the acceleration.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no speed involvedThe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction of a is instantaneously along a radius inward toward the center
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the circle.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Figure 4-6 shows the instantaneous relation between v and a at various
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> points of the motion. The magnitude of v is constant, but its direction
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes continuously. This gives rise to an acceleration a which is also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant in magnitude (but not zero) but continuously changing in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> direction. The velocity v is always tangent to the circle in the direction
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of motion; the acceleration a is always directed radially inward. Because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this, a is called a radial or *centripetal* acceleration. Centripetal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> means ‘seeing a center.’ “
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you see, Halliday and Resnick start off by talking about motion in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> circle at constant speed and then describes the acceleration present in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this case, called centripetal acceleration, which is not zero even though
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the speed is constant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously were never able to learn what was in chapter 4 of this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> first-year book on physics. And it’s written as plain as day, with diagrams
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and math and everything.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
> >>>>>>>>>>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And you say you disagree with first-year physics, even the early chapters.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why do you think any physicist would read any of your stuff if you think
> >>>>>>>>>> first-year physics is all wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And why do you think that any physicist would pay any attention to you if
> >>>>>>>>>> you say first that “[Holliday] is wrong” and then you say “Holliday is
> >>>>>>>>>> right with his model” and then you say “Holliday’s model Made certain
> >>>>>>>>>> assumptions…and I disagree” and you can’t keep straight what you’re saying
> >>>>>>>>>> from one day to the next?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You’re in a home for the infirm because you can no longer take care of
> >>>>>>>>>> yourself, and it shows in everything you try to say.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> AND you are right, this just shows your 85-year-old brain has turned to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mush. Is it any wonder that your book is completely ignored?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My model Can unify all the forces of nature can Holliday’s Model do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that?......guess not. Einstein describe gravity with curved spacetime and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you described gravity with constant straight speed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, why would anyone download a PDF book written by someone that never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> learned chapter 4 material from a first-year physics book?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead and bury your head in the sand.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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 27, 2021 at 8:09:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 7:48:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with their model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
>>>>>>>>>> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity?
>>>>>>>>> Because he can’t !!!
>>>>>>>>> Instead he use curved spacetime.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
>>>>>>>>>> you’ve never learned first year physics?
>>>>>>>>> They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong.
>>>>>>>>> For example: constant
>>>>>>>>> speed to explain gravity.
>>>>>>>> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
>>>>>>>> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
>>>>>>>> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First year physics is wrong
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are a liar. My complete sentence is as follows: First year physics is
>>>>> wrong by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity.
>>>> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
>>>> You don’t even know what the words mean. gravity is wrong.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I am being ignored because physicists are too embarrassed to admit their mistakes.
>> Mistakes in Chapter 2 of first year physics, right? This is what you’re
>> saying.
>>
>> You’re saying that the meaning of speed is wrong, and the correct meaning
>> of speed makes it impossible for curved motion to have it.
>
> No moron, I was saying that speed use to explain gravity is wrong.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 7:48:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 7:11:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 12:13:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:39:22 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2021 8:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 8:37:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 3:08:17 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto could not pass high school physics now if he tried, really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He’d get to the chapter on uniform circular motion and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no equilibrium in uniform circular motion, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he’d just crap his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pants and toss up his hands.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can’t even understand how an object can whirl at the end of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insisted that only centripetal acceleration involved. Sad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup. At constant speed this is so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot, there is no constant speed with just centripetal acceleration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sad.....that’s your knowledge of gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I do. Here’s another quote from Resnick and Halliday, a book that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed at one point to have read and understood:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with their model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And since Resnick and Halliday’s treatment is identical to those in just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about every first-year physics book around, you are saying you disagree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you might recognize why physicists ignore everything you do, since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you think first-year physics books are all wrong, and you don’t know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference between speed and velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First year physics books ALL say that uniform circular motion is a case of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a curved path with constant speed, something you say is impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I disagree that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree with the concept that speed can describe gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you disagree with first-year physics.
>>>>>>>>>> That’s fine, Ken. You never learned first-year physics. You never tried.
>>>>>>>>>> You never will at your age and your inabilities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How comment Einstein didn’t use constant speed to describe gravity?
>>>>>>>>> Because he can’t !!!
>>>>>>>>> Instead he use curved spacetime.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why then would any physicist give any of your ideas any attention, since
>>>>>>>>>> you’ve never learned first year physics?
>>>>>>>>> They didn't realize that some ideas of first year physics are wrong.
>>>>>>>>> For example: constant
>>>>>>>>> speed to explain gravity.
>>>>>>>> And since you don’t understand first-year physics, no one in their right
>>>>>>>> mind will ever pay any attention to your idiotic ideas about physics.
>>>>>>>> You’re a know-nothing whack job, and you know it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First year physics is wrong
>>>>>>
>>>>> You are a liar. My complete sentence is as follows: First year physics is
>>>>> wrong by asserting that constant speed can describe gravity.
>>>> And that statement right there guarantees you being ignored.
>>>> You don’t even know what the words mean.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I am being ignored because physicists are too embarrassed to admit
>>> their mistakes. BTW that’s the reason why they can’t find the cause of
>>> gravity after 110 years of trying.
>> Speaking of being embarrassed, Ken, are you too embarrassed to admit that
>> you don’t know what speed means?
>
> Moron, it is you who don’t know what speed mean.

On 7/26/2021 8:39 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 3:57:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Holliday is right with his model and I am right with my model.
>>> Ken, when you say his model is wrong up above and now you say it is right
>>
>> Moron Holliday’s model Made certain assumptions that enabled him to
>> conclude that speed can describe gravity and I disagree.
>
> It’s not Holliday. It’s Resnick and Halliday.

Mine says Halliday and Resnick. I wonder if they agreed to switch the
ordering of names with different editions or something.