Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 15:41 13/01/2005 -0500, Harry wrote: > >> All this flows from _your_ force analysis of orbital motion. I think it is a >> mistaken analysis because it is based on an analogy between orbital motion >> and a body in a centrifuge. A body orbits the earth because it is in >> free fall. There is simply no outward force associated with that sort of >> motion. The bottom line is mechanical systems do not accurately model >> gravitational systems. > > > I think I can see where our disagreement on this bit lies. > You take the rather naive view that motion in a straight > line (straight relative the frame of the "fixed" stars) is > forceless.
My position is Gravity is not a 'force' in the sense of a push or a pull, so orbital motion is NOT a balance of 'forces'. I think motion under gravity is inconsistent with the first law of motion as drafted by Newton. > I don't. > > I view motion in a straight line in a way more in keeping > with the modern science of Cybernetics and Information Theory. > > I see motion in a straight line as controlled by equal > and opposite Beta-aether forces on the sides of a body. > Any deviation from a straight line is counteracted by > negative feedback from the Beta-aether. Taking this view, > centrifugal forces are REAL forces. May be so, but I don't think they are real or apparent in the context of orbital motion. > >> However, for sake of argument, I will accept your force analysis of orbital >> motion, but you still have a problem explaining why weight should not arise >> because most bodies consist of protons and neutrons. Your explanation only >> covers bodies composed of thing 1 and thing 2 particles. > > > Yes, but "most bodies" also "consist" of atoms. > > And had we been having this discussion in the > nineteenth century you would have been singing, > that century's equivalent of - If only I could sing and dance. > # There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium, > And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium, > And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium, > And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium, > Europium, zirconium, lutetium, vanadium, > And lanthanum and osmium and astatine and radium, > And gold and protactinium and indium and gallium, > And iodine and thorium and thulium and thallium. # > > # There's yttrium, ytterbium, actinium, rubidium, > And boron, gadolinium, .........# > > .....and if someone had told you, > > "Ah, yes. But inside each of those allegedly indivisible \ > atoms there is this teeny-weeny Thing 1 core which grabs > virtually all the mass. > > And this teeny-weeny Thing 1 core is surrounded by > a wispy Thing 2 cloud which grabs virtually all > the space,"..... > > ,,,,you would have laughed him to scorn, and said. > > "Pull the other one. It's got bells on." > > And yet Thing 1 and Thing 2 have a Thingee Force > which holds them together; and they can be put in > an environment where the atom will suffer internal > strain. In some environments they suffer internal strain. but orbiting free fall motion is strain free. ...The way of Tao. Harry
