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. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
