| |
|
Article: <5c0ped$np@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: GRAVITY - the Zetas Explain
Date: 20 Jan 1997 21:52:13 GMT
In article
<Pine.OSF.3.91.970117012810.19932C-100000@zuaxp0.star.ucl.ac.uk>Richard
Townsend postulates:
>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> Were it to varry by the math you postulate, the forces
>> would NEVER be equal.
>
> Sure they would. Suppose attractive force varies as 2/r^2,
and
> repulsive force varies as 3/r^3. Then they are equal when
>
> 3/r^3 = 2/r^2,
> Richard Townsend <rhdt@star.ucl.ac.uk>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You're not expressing an equal gravity and repulsion force here.
Are 3 and 2 equal distances apart? Try that equation as 3/r^3 =
3/r^2. Does this represent what we said, that the forces would be
equal at a certain point when large objects approach each other?
Are you being silly in an attempt to make US look silly?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article
<Pine.OSF.3.91.970117012810.19932C-100000@zuaxp0.star.ucl.ac.uk>Richard
Townsend explains:
> What I meant to say was that, given the centrifugal force,
the
> only other forces due to gravity, whether they be attractive
or
> repulsive, must vary as 1/r^2 to agree with observations.
Now,
> you have agreed that centrifugal forces "exist",
and claim that
> there are, on top of that, both attractive and repulsive
> gravitational forces which keep the planets to their orbit.
For
> these forces to reproduce the actual orbits observed (and
Kepler's
> observation), they must both vary as 1/r^2 as stated above.
>
> If all our theories and math are so wrong, how come they
work?
> Richard Townsend <rhdt@star.ucl.ac.uk>
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
We did NOT agree that centrifugal forces "exist". We
said the opposite, that they are not a "thing". We will
ask our emissary, Nancy, to repost the beginning statement of our
Centrifugal Force topic so the readership is not led astray in
this matter.
Forces due to gravity must be 1/r^2 to agree with observations? WHAT observations? To agree with THEORY, not observations. You have described gravity as increasing in strength the closer the objects come and put a number on it that seems to work during experiments on the surface of your Earth, with tiny object attracted to a single large object - the Earth. You have NO experiments between large objects, all experience with gravity on the surface of other planets being an extension of what you learned on the surface of the Earth - tiny things and a single large object, NOT between large objects.
You've taken your limited experience and projected this to be
a law of the Universe. Please, don't be so childish!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
As requested, ZetaTalk on Centrifugal Force, in part.
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM] excerpt on Centrifugal Force)
Motion is not a thing, immutable, unchangeable, eternal, once
born at the start, as during a big bang or whatever, never to go
away. Motion is not a thing, it is a result, a reaction, and as
such it changes. Human astronomers explain orbits as a balance
between a straight line motion tangental to the sun and a gravity
tug to the side, and assume that the forward motion is translated
into a centrifugal force that never erodes as it is a thing. This
looks good on paper, but examine the reality a bit closer and the
contradictions and inadequacy of that argument emerge.
(End ZetaTalk[TM] excerpt on Centrifugal Force)