# Gravitational Fields and Gravitational Waves

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see you're still deflecting and avoiding the question.
You've already admitted that you can't support your (made up) "equations" by actually doing the maths, so all you have is unsupported claims that they're valid. (And basic dimensional analysis - oh, and the rules of maths - shows that they're not).
Hmm no ,

G=F<E is a compete formula and explanation of gravitational transition .

An object in motion whilst traveling through space will remain in motion because of the vector attractive force of the future position spatial points F<E .

Any change of vector path requires an acting external force and/or a change of internal energy of the object .

Quite clearly you know no physics but measures of physics .

G=F<E is a compete formula and explanation of gravitational transition .
No, this is bullshit.
An object in motion whilst traveling through space will remain in motion because of the vector attractive force of the future position spatial points F<E .
No, this is bullshit.
Any change of vector path requires an acting external force and/or a change of internal energy of the object .
No, this is bullshit.

And you're still a liar.

No, this is bullshit.

No, this is bullshit.

No, this is bullshit.

And you're still a liar.
You are quite the bot with a limited capacity for words .

It is factual , not bs .

Energy transition does not involve propulsion , thrust or ''emittence'' force , therefore the only answer left is transition by attractive force .

You really should think before you keep embarrassing yourself with your limited thinking ability .

It's funny isn't it that the cranks, liars and nutcases prefer to simply reiterate their unsupported claims and make personal attacks rather than actually support those claims.

It's funny isn't it that the cranks, liars and nutcases prefer to simply reiterate their unsupported claims and make personal attacks rather than actually support those claims.
It is a shame you do that , I have seen no support that you do physics so far !

It is a shame you do that , I have seen no support that you do physics so far !
And you haven't supported a single one of your contentions.

And you haven't supported a single one of your contentions.

Axioms don't need support because they are self evidently true !

Seems I made the right call when I put Mohat on ignore.

Axioms don't need support because they are self evidently true !
They're not axioms.
And they can't be self-evidently true because they're blatantly bullshit.

They're not axioms.
And they can't be self-evidently true because they're blatantly bullshit.
Keep telling yourself that Victor Meldrew because the physics doesn't care if you don't bloody believe it in denial .

Why don't you start by researching and looking up what a transition is ?

Quite clearly you have no real interest in physics and your only purpose is to act to your feelings

Keep telling yourself that Victor Meldrew because the physics doesn't care if you don't bloody believe it in denial .
You don't know what physics does or doesn't do, liar.
Quite clearly you have no real interest in physics and your only purpose is to act to your feelings
Wrong again, liar.

You don't know what physics does or doesn't do, liar.

Wrong again, liar.
All you ever say is blah blah blah , quite clearly you have been feeling down

I suspect you are quite young ?

I suspect you are quite young ?
Not only a liar but stupid with it.
My age is quite clearly given on my profile.

Not only a liar but stupid with it.
My age is quite clearly given on my profile.
Ok if that is your age , you act like young with your mouth

Ok if that is your age , you act like young with your mouth
I don't type with my mouth. Liar.

I don't type with my mouth. Liar.
But you clearly are foul mouthed , remind a bit of that guy off TV who runs that pawn shop

But you clearly are foul mouthed , remind a bit of that guy off TV who runs that pawn shop
But I don't lie about my occupation. So that's a plus.

But I don't lie about my occupation. So that's a plus.

I didn't lie about my occupation , I never stated my occupation . I said I was a professor of advanced science that doesn't mean I am employed by science .

Anyway no worries , my feelings have not been touched by you

I didn't lie about my occupation , I never stated my occupation .
Um, professor IS an occupation. (In the UK).
I said I was a professor of advanced science
And that's a lie too.
that doesn't mean I am employed by science
The title professor is reserved for those who have been promoted to the highest grade on the university pay scale.