Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:17:58 -0500: > Hi Harry, > [snip] >>>> You might ask, isn't the function of gravitational mass to attract? >>>> This answer is no. Gravitational mass reflects a body's indifference >>>> to having its gravitational acceleration impeded by another body. >>> [snip] >>> I'm sorry, but I can make no sense whatever out of this. Perhaps you could >>> put >>> it in other words? >>> >> >> >> >> Mechanics is _a_ science of motion. However it has become an ideology >> of motion over the last 250 hundred years. >> I will put together a cut and paste history of the science of motion from >> Aristotle to Newton with selections I have gathered from the internet over >> the years. >> >> Harry >> > I'm afraid a history isn't going to address the issue, and besides I have > little > patience with historical texts anyway. One usually ends up wading through > reams > of irrelevant nonsense, in the vague hope of extracting one or two gems of > useful information. > > Your reply BTW didn't answer my question. You just evaded the issue. > > For in as much as I understood what you wrote above, I get the impression that > you have simply reversed the definitions of gravitational and inertial mass, > and > without apparent cause as near as I can tell.
I did not mean to give you that impression. Can your impression be undone? Harry
