Re: "Is There a Force of Gravity?"

Joe Fischer <efischer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, stephen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>>Joe Fischer <efischer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, stephen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>Joe Fischer <efischer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> You are assuming Euclidean space, the Moon moves
>>>>> relative to the Earth as a result of at least two vectors, which
>>>>> may not add as expected.
>>>>
>>>>What are these vectors?
>>
>>> I don't know, just relative motion, but the change
>>> in unit intervals affects the radial distance differently than
>>> it affects the tangential path.
>>
>>Frankly it does not sound like you have any theory at all.

> I don't think it is a "theory" at all, a theory needs math,
> and most "theories" are only math.

I just wanted your explanation of how expansion explains
the moon's orbit. Instead you start talking about vectors
that you cannot even identify. Can you answer the question
or not?

The search for "mechanisms" is a somewhat circular one
that always seems to assume what it is trying to explain.
Invariably people looking for mechanisms seem to want
to explain everything in terms of collisions and
"billiard balls". But what is the mechanism that
explains collisions? In the real world, we know
that billiard balls bounce off of each other because
of electromagnetic forces. So what is the point in
explaining electomagnetic forces, or gravity even,
in terms of billiard balls? Why do you not need to
explain the mechanism for the "fundamental" collisions?

Why does gravity need a "mechanism"? Does Newton's
straight line motion need a mechanism?

Stephen
.