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
>

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