Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity
From: Dennis McCarthy (djmenck_at_aol.com)
Date: 09/29/04
- Next message: Mich: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Previous message: FrediFizzx: "Re: LeSagian Gravitational Field Momentum Flux linked to EM/QM constants"
- Maybe in reply to: Bilge: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 28 Sep 2004 19:36:56 -0700
>
> and "Vern" <vthodge@bealenet.com> writes:
>
> > [Vern]: I'm going to try another quote to explain my position:
>
> I assume this was from the same faulty source as the
> previous source because it has elementary errors too. I mention some
> examples:
>
> > [Vern (quoting)]: "It was originally Galileo's discovery, that the
> > trajectory of a falling body can be separated into two or more
> > entirely independent components of motion, caused by separate and
> > independent forces.
TVF:
> The horizontal component of motion is a velocity, not an
> acceleration, and therefore has no associated ?force?. There is only one
> force of gravity, and it is purely radial (which is downward for falling
> bodies).
>
>
> > [Vern (quoting)]: Take the case of an apple, dropped from the top of a
> > two story building. During the first second it falls radially toward
> > the center of the earth 9.8 meters.
>
> Uh, no, it falls 4.9 meters in the first second. But its
> speed becomes 9.8 meters per second. (Getting these mixed up is not a
> good sign.)
>
> > [Vern (quoting)]: Neither is there an acceptable theory to explain why
> > the moon should share the angular momentum of the earth, like the
> > apple or the cannon ball, nor is there any imaginable parallel for the
> > force of the gunpowder.
TFV:
> This is wrong on both counts. All four theories of lunar
> origin get the Moon into its present orbit with its present angular
> momentum. Especially the fission origin theory has the Moon being broken
> off from the rotating Earth, and therefore fully sharing Earth?s spin
> just like the apple or the cannon ball. And the remark about gunpowder
> again confuses forces with velocities -- something no physicist would
> do. No force is required to set an initial motion because most things in
> the universe already have relative motion.
Dennis:
Hi Tom,
Nice to chat with you again.
Rado's lack of formal education in the subject leads him to occasional
elementary
errors in his statements -- but his general notions and points
strictly adhere to basic,
classical physics. I believe his instincts are true, particularly as
regard the mechanism
for maintaining an ether sink. His point here is simply that there
has to
be an explanation for why all the planets orbit in the same direction
on the same plane.
Attributing it to a rotating cloud of particles just begs the
question. What sets all the particles of
the cloud rotating? Yes, "most things in the universe already have
relative motion" --
but not all in the same direction and in the same plane.
The point I often highlight is the lack of explanation for why most
moons orbit near the plane of the equator of planets in the same
direction as rotation. You correctly write that the "fission origin
theory" would explain the Earth moon system. However it would not
explain Uranus, which rotates on its
side, yet the moons still orbit its equator -- nearly perpendicular to
the rest of the solar system.
I think it self-evident that we should not seek to explain the
coincidence of lunar orbits with planetary
rotation and planetary equators one planetary system at a time.
The current theory for the moons and rotation of Uranus is that it is
the result of its collision
with a planetary sized body. But if we accept the impact origin of
moons, then have all the other impacts been just right so as to ensure
that essentially all the other major moons remain prograde and in
nearly the same plane as the solar system? Another important
question: Is there anything in current physics that forbids the
natural occurrence of a moon in a polar orbit? Yet it never happens --
even when a planet has been knocked on its side. Why?
Finally, the similarities between our Jovian planetary systems and
the encompassing solar system are too numerous to count. In fact, in
many mainstream treatments on the subject, Jupiter is described as a
miniature solar system Our solar system and the Jupiter system both
rotate in the same direction, near the same plane. Both have orbiting
terrestrial bodies and rings. It is particularly unparsimonious, to
put it mildly, to use two completely different explanations for the
formation of these two systems -- and
leave their obvious resemblance to chance.
- Next message: Mich: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Previous message: FrediFizzx: "Re: LeSagian Gravitational Field Momentum Flux linked to EM/QM constants"
- Maybe in reply to: Bilge: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
