Article: <6hp33s$pj@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti Date: 24 Apr 1998 04:06:20 GMT In article <353CFFE2.9E0@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> M.C. Harrison writes. >> In your silly math descriptions of orbits, which you CANNOT >> place together with your math description of gravity! How can >> you defend your elliptical math when you can't place it >> alongside your other precepts! > > I can. The force of gravity is an inverse square law, which means > a mass will experience a force due to another mass according to > the equation F=M1*M2/r^2 where M1 is one mass, M2 is the > other mass, and r is the separation of the masses. ... Motion of an > object is to proceed in a straight line at a constant velocity, but > with an acceleration, it will go faster in the direction of the force, > V=v+At, where V is the new velocity and v is the old velocity, A > is the acceleration and t is the number of seconds that have passed. > A simple Basic program which moves an object according to this > inverse square law can then be written, which by varying the rate > and starting position of the object, will demonstrate the circular > path in question. Similarily, ellipses can be produced. (Begin ZetaTalk[TM]) You've made a leap! Stop and explain this leap! We're OK while moving in a straight line, toward the gravitational giant. That's your inverse square law. Then you say this can make an object go in a circle. And why is that? Planetary confusion? Indecisiveness? Your formula, your inverse square formula, was hardly indecisive. Please explain why an object moving away from, or toward, another object would decide to go in circles? You are varying the rate and starting position of the object? Why? What force caused the rate to change? Orbits are notoriously steady! Assume then, a steady rate of forward motion, as this lines up with reality. Changing the starting position? Why would the orbiting planet decide to change position? You don't really mean that, you mean changing the ANGLE the object is pointing in! You've arbitrarily decided to torque the object! What force torqued the object? If you are about to say that an object moving at a line tangential to a gravitational giant changes position because it is moving TOWARD the giant, then this does not become a circle or an ellipse. It simply does not, except in the math formulas of those who will NOT put their formulas all together! In this hypothetical situation, a planet turning toward a gravitational giant will NOT maintain a steady distance. The turn now has it CLOSER than it was a moment ago, and it will turn yet more, and more, with each turn pointing it steadily in a straight line TOWARD the giant, until the inevitable happens! Why would this not occur? If the gravitational giant can turn the passing object AT ALL, it can turn it more and more! Each turn places it closer! Of course, in this argument, we are quite aware of the factors you are missing in your formulas, and where you go astray in your logic. We are asking these rhetorical questions in an attempt to get you to THINK, which is unlikely. (End ZetaTalk[TM]) In article <353CFFE2.9E0@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> M.C. Harrison writes. > Spookily enough, these computer models are very accurate in > predicting eclipses, the motion of comets, other planets and so > forth, all of which is consistent with: (Begin ZetaTalk[TM]) No, you wrote the program to describe the phenomena, and when it does, you say "amazing!" If I say "spookily enough, the Sun rises in the East every 24 hours!", this does not mean my formula which counts for 24 hours and then looks East is a great feat, it simply means you have been observant and DESCRIBED a local phenomena in a manner that only works in a limited way. Take it to another world, and the rules won't apply. (End ZetaTalk[TM]) In article <353CFFE2.9E0@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> M.C. Harrison writes. >> So why would it TRUCK SIDEWAYS to get back to the other >> side of the ellipse for the inbound trip? What GRAVITY >> PULL causes it to truck sideways? Gravity is suddently negated? > > The object travels slowly and at a fairly consistent velocity, > until it falls sunwards, (Begin ZetaTalk[TM]) If it falls sunward, then why is it moving SIDEWAYS? You've got the thing slowing down, moving away from the Sun way out there on the right. Now it is moving slowly, slowed as the gravitational giant to its back is pulling it backward, but instead of falling directly TOWARD the Sun, it decides to go sideways, moving STEADILY sideways, not veering toward the Sun? What force pulls it sideways? You've got it making the same trek, from right to left, way out there in space, as it did left to right when close to the Sun! Why! The speed is not the same, as you've stated, it has slowed down. Logically, it should start to fall toward the Sun SOONER, when in the way out part of the ellipse, no? Why does it NOT do this? Please don't prate your ellipse descriptions again, as that is NOT putting together your gravity formulas with the situation in hand. Try to put them side by side, without blinking. If you ever manage to actually do this, and come to grips with this glaring contradiction in your math formulas describing your Universe, you will have make a giant step. Few on this usenet do this, and certainly the arrogant shepherds do not do this. They've got their positions, at major universities, to think about, and the universities aren't into resolving discrepancies either! Let sleeping dogs lie, and inconsistencies and contradictions be ignored! (End ZetaTalk[TM])