[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Harry, > >> From: Harry Veeder > > ... > >> Imagine a frictionless vertical plane that you slide over >> as you are thrown up. It is your speed w.r.t to that >> plane that is indicated. > > If I understand your perception on this matter it would seem to indicate to me > that in your thought experiment "direction", specifically the desitnation one > is headed towards (or away from) is irrelavant. All that really matters is the > absolute velocity one currently possesses w.r.t. that plane. Doesn't really > matter what "direction" one is headed. > > Ok. I think I get it.
Yes, now you understand. However, as said earlier, I made a technical error by referring to velocity instead of speed. Velocity implies a direction since velocity is a vector and a vector has magnitude *and* direction. So what matters is the absolute speed with respect to that plane. > However, I suspect many (myself included) might object to the seemingly > arbitrary decision to do away with outside reference points. I don't know. > I'll have to think about that. Ok, but I am not trying to do away with outside reference points. Rather I am trying to bring in new ideas. >>> Perhaps you can help clarify (to me) exactly what the >>> mechanism is that allows you to define *MY* speed, after >>> I have been thrown up into the sky and have >>> started falling back towards the ground, as: "positive >> speed". In this exercise it's obvious that all things >>> thrown up (including myself) will eventually fall back >>> down. When I begin falling back it no longer seems >>> accurate to describe my ultimate desination of splatting >>> against the ground as "positive speed" anymore. Quite >>> the opposite, IMHO. So, hopefully, I have clarified the >>> confusion I'm continuing to have concerning >> your definition of "positive speed". >> >> No worries. In this experiment you get to land on a big cushion. ;-) > > Oh! Good! I feel much better now! :-) > > ... > > >> If the Earth is expanding under my feet then I should >> soon be able to touchthe Moon. (Sooner if the Moon >> is also expanding.) > > Not necessarily. Again, to restate, in my zany theory I present the hypothesis > that there is no "gravity" or "attraction" per say. Instead, there is only the > phenomenon of objects accelerating towards all other objects AND the effects > of inertia. All planetary objects in orbit (including elliptical orbits) are > constantly involved in a never ending EXPANDING spiral dance held in check by > the effects of inertia making subtle directional changes to the bodies > involved in that dance. IOW, expansion combined with inertia help keeps all > planetary orbits performing the two-step. Hmmm, you seem to be in the same dilemma as Newton. Harry > Well... in any case I get the feeling that I may not get my medal. > > Regards, > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com >
