| |
|
Article: <5aebnt$45i@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: Why We WORSHIP Newton
Date: 1 Jan 1997 18:51:41 GMT
In article <5a79s2$h4i@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> Kent
Nickerson writes
> The instant gravitational corrections would change direction
to
> a new tangent, such that the whole orbit of tangents would
> describe a polygon of many sides (the midpoint of each
side/tangent
> being radius perpendicular). Now, for the first half of the
bend,
> the body would be pulled back, as you argue. For the latter
half,
> however, the body would be *pushed*! Net change of speed:
zero.
> Nada.
> nickerso@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Kent Nickerson)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Pushed by what? Because you draw a curve on a piece of paper, and
see the moving planet as it rises up the hump as being pulled
back, our explanation of the pull back of gravity toward the Sun,
do you imagine that as it reaches the top of you drawn curve, and
rolls down the other side, that it therefore has a PUSH?
Hahahahaha! You're living in your own little world here. You've
come to believe that the mathematical symbols and diagrams you
draw have LIFE, are REAL. They are no more real than the words
you use to describe what you see.
AT ALL TIMES, during the constant adjustment that a planet is undergoing in order to have its straight line path pulled into an orbit curve, AT ALL TIMES, there is a pull back toward the Sun. No matter how tiny you make the instant, nor how long! Take a tangent line that covers 1/4 of the orbit, for instance. Even if you give your drawing life, such that the bottom of the triangle humps up then down at the center, even then, the planet at the far end of the tangent that formsthe lower part of the triangle is STILL being pulled back.
Examine the original tangent. Look at either the lower line of
the triangle or the hump of a curve you have drawn. At the start
of the planet's travel through the triangle you have drawn there
is a pull back, as you have acknowledged. Even IF the planet
travels the hump, not the line at the bottom of the triangle,
when you reach the top of the hump an even greater drama ensues,
as THE ANGLE OF PULL BACK STEADILY INCREASES! You cannot assume
in this argument that a push has been created during the latter
half of this hump by creating a NEW triangle in the middle of the
first! In this case, you've in fact created smaller triangles to
begin with.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])