Re: serious chewing and eotvos
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
Re: serious chewing and eotvos
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. 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. 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 - # 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. = amen dico vobis nisi conversi fueritis et efficiamini sicut parvuli non intrabitis in regnum caelorum = Cheers Grimer
Re: serious chewing and eotvos
At 08:29 AM 1/14/2005 -0800, you wrote: A body undergoing a constant acceleration at 90 deg to its direction of travel will travel in a circle. Radius of the circular path is determined by a combination of the bodies velocity and the magnitude of the force. (Sorry Horace, I can't take the time to quantify all this with numbers at this time) Thus a body in orbit must have sufficient velocity to counteract the effects of gravity at that orbital radius. We call this free-fall because the body accelerates (falls) freely with gravity. Due to Newton's second law, the body in circular motion must exert an equal force upon the source of it's acceleration. In the case of a centrifuge, the body presses against the outside of the chamber. In the case of gravitational orbit, the mass of the body exerts a small gravitational pull upon the mass it is orbiting. The human body feels aceleration by means of the strain placed on its tissues by inertia. In freefall every cell is accelerating at the same rate, and so there is no strain, thus the body feels no weight. Weight is the force a body exerts on some supporting structure to counter the force of gravity. In free-fall there is no weight, because there is no need (nor mechanism) to counter the action of gravity upon the body. Orbit is the balance between gravity (acceleration) and velocity, not between 2 opposing forces. Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip 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. snip Harry Dr Johnson was walking down a narrow lane one day. Houses on either side were of the old fashioned type with upper stories projecting almost half way across the street. From opposite upper story windows two women were leaning out and having a violent argument. Dr Johnson paused for a moment and contemplated the scene before him. Turning to his companion he observed. Those women will never agree. They are arguing from different premises. ;-) Cheers Grimer
Re: serious chewing and eotvos
Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 06:05 pm 12-01-05 -0500, you wrote: Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:24 pm 12-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: Your protons and neutrons are not like the protons and neutrons known to physics. Neutrons and protons both have inertia and gravity, but for the sake of argument you have divested the neutron of inertia and the proton of gravity. Harry Oh dear. I'll try just once more! I am only too well aware of the fact that protons and neutrons have inertia and gravity, which is precisely why I prefaced my remarks with the words for the sake of argument. I couldn't use the names of the particle [Thing 1 say] which is seen by gravity, nor could I use the name of the particle which is seen [Thing 2, say] by inertia coz .to adapt those immortal lines from Tom Lehrer's The Elements to to the sub-elements. # And there may be many others but they haven't been disca-vard. Bum, ba-da-ta tum tum, bum bum! ... # Thing 1 and Thing 2 are empty spaces in a minimalist table; analogous to the empty spaces in the Mendeleev table before the elements that occupied those spaces were disca-vard. Cheers Do thing 1 and thing 2 come with a thing-force to keep them together? Harry
Re: serious chewing and eotvos
At 03:42 am 13-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: Do thing 1 and thing 2 come with a thing-force to keep them together? By George, (s)he's got it, Pickering. By George, (s)he's got it. ;^) Of course they do. That was implicit in the analogy. It's no good having a sail and a hull if they haven't got a thing-force to hold them together, is it! 8-) Cheers. Grimer
Re: serious chewing and eotvos
Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:42 am 13-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: Do thing 1 and thing 2 come with a thing-force to keep them together? By George, (s)he's got it, Pickering. By George, (s)he's got it. ;^) Of course they do. That was implicit in the analogy. It's no good having a sail and a hull if they haven't got a thing-force to hold them together, is it! 8-) Cheers. Grimer 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. 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. Harry
Re: serious chewing and eotvos
At 06:05 pm 12-01-05 -0500, you wrote: Grimer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:24 pm 12-01-05 -0500, Harry wrote: Your protons and neutrons are not like the protons and neutrons known to physics. Neutrons and protons both have inertia and gravity, but for the sake of argument you have divested the neutron of inertia and the proton of gravity. Harry Oh dear. I'll try just once more! I am only too well aware of the fact that protons and neutrons have inertia and gravity, which is precisely why I prefaced my remarks with the words for the sake of argument. I couldn't use the names of the particle [Thing 1 say] which is seen by gravity, nor could I use the name of the particle which is seen [Thing 2, say] by inertia coz .to adapt those immortal lines from Tom Lehrer's The Elements to to the sub-elements. # And there may be many others but they haven't been disca-vard. Bum, ba-da-ta tum tum, bum bum! ... # Thing 1 and Thing 2 are empty spaces in a minimalist table; analogous to the empty spaces in the Mendeleev table before the elements that occupied those spaces were disca-vard. Cheers Grimer
