Scott,
On page 138 of Pari Spolter's book, she has a section called " Free
Fall." She points out that Aristotle correlated velocity of a fall to
weight, such that a 100 pound weight would fall twice as fast as a 50
pound
weight.
Then she cites a host of later thinkers, including Galileo, who show
that unequal weights fall at the same velocity, air resistance aside.
Why
···
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:56:28 -0300 "Dean De Lucia" <[email protected]> writes:
isn't that the end of the Newtonian ball game right there? ( Newtonian
=
Gravity in relation to the density of mass )
Also, she shows that the gravitational force of the Sun comes out
constant when calculated according to the equation she gives based on
Kepler's Third Law. Then she shows how the gravitational force of the
Sun comes out
" wrong" when calculated with Newton's Gravity Formula. Why isn't that
the
last nail in the coffin? What counter arguments are given by
Newtonians?
Dharma/Dean
Dean,
Before I supply a possible answer, I want to set the record
straight.
It is not that I am so adoring of the Newtonian gravity formula, that
causes
me to argue for his point of view. Thinking scientifically means that
one must
think like a scientist. To do so means arguing back and forth, as I do
internally,
concerning the Newtonian gravity formula. I merely am using Newton as an
arguing starting point. The fact that I appear to champion his formulas
is a bit
of a misconception. It is as if I am defending an idea as far as
possible to ensure
that no bias on my part, wishing to do anything to support a hollow earth
model
for the Earth as an example, will cause me to miss any point in favor of
a formula
BEFORE we submit it for burial at the local "idea" cemetery.
Now to the ideas you point out above. If you don't know yet, I
have had
the Pari Spolter book for several months, so anything you wish to point
out for
my edification can be readily followed.
I have thought of measuring the sheering forces on an orbiting
body and
in that way prove once and for all that Newton was wrong or right one way
or
the other. The problem that always seems to come to me is that for a
given
Kepler orbit, ALL bodies orbit the Sun at the same velocity at the same
orbital
radius. Is this supposed to an incorrect idea? I think not. I have
reasons that
make it not so easy a thing to either disprove the gravitational theory
set forth
by Newton or prove it to be true.
In the force formula F = GMm/R2 = ma, it has always bothered me
that
the formula seems to contradict itself. On the one hand, it seems that
only one
mass seems relevant to decide for instance, the velocity that an orbital
body will
orbit its primary by. I believe that this is what Pari was getting at.
All the masses
seem to obey Kepler's third law of orbital motion irregardless of the
amount of
mass that they have. Pari has stated that it seems almost like the Sun
has to attract
different massed bodies with different gravities. This seems ridiculous
and if the
story ended there it certainly would be. I guess the reasoning is that
since we
assume that the gravitational force from the Sun is constant, only
varying in distance,
how can it be that two bodies of diverse mass can both maintain or orbit
at a given
mean radius from the Sun at the same orbital velocity. After all, it is
the orbital
velocity that appears to dictate period of orbit as well as that
satellites drop rate
to its Primary (the Sun).
Rodney Cluff had noted in review of some of my earlier writings
that the
reason that this is so is that there is an ether force, a theory he
endorses, and
irregardless of size, all bodies share an equivalent drop rate toward
their orbital
primary, the Sun in this case. He thought that I was totally agreeing
with him but
it only appeared that way. In deference to Rod, he may be right. I
don't know
one way or the other. I must either see things or think I am seeing
things. I do
contend that Newton doesn't contradict himself with a formula that
appears to
indicate that the larger mass both is the only relevant determinant of
gravitational
and orbital forces, AND, that the mass product is the determining factor
of orbital
and gravitational forces. Yes, I seem to contradict myself but let me
explain to
you why this isn't the case!
We must not forget that all mass bodies possess a certain
INERTIA. This
seems to be the missing ingredient in the whole question. In the formula
for gravity,
we have a product of two masses: Mm. The larger M is the Sun and the m
is the
orbiting body. Like Pari, this made no sense to me until I realized that
the KEY to
understanding this contradiction is based on the fact that different mass
products
which are the result of differing "m" mass bodies have different
inertial values against
any influence affecting its own motion. The reverse side of the same
coin is that bodies
at rest tend to stay at rest. If one couples this with the act of
exerting a force on a
body to make it move at a constant acceleration equivalent to all other
mass bodies
the distinction can be seen. Take an apple and a sledge hammer each
falling in a
vacuum chamber at sea level. Pari seems to have suggested that it makes
no sense
that the law of gravity acts more strongly on the sledge hammer than the
apple and I
would agree except for the fact that the product of the much higher mass
value of the
sledge hammer is applied as it must be to overcoming the resistance or
natural inertia
of the sledge hammer to remain at rest. My explanation for why the
gravity of the planet
remains constant upon two differing masses is that more work is performed
on the larger
mass body to match the same acceleration happening with the apple. The
apple is much
smaller and has less INERTIA. The mass product comes in very handy to
explain the
apparent dominance of the large "M" in the gravity formula. "M" is a
constant, but as
we all know the masses effected either by the earth or the orbit of the
Sun depends on
the very difference in the smaller mass to make all bodies behave
similarly. So put
simply, the presence of a difference in mass products is not made
apparent by a greater
degree of acceleration, but it would be a mistake to fail to note that
the extra force is
perfectly applied in overcoming the excess value of inertia of the larger
body of mass
in the same orbit.
This explains how orbital dynamics can be both based on the MASS
PRODUCT
and yet seemingly in a contradiction of terms the Sun or large "M"
appears to dictate orbital
behavior in the solar system.
Scott
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.