Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti

Article: <6hp33s$pj@sjx-ixn11.ix.netcom.com> 
Subject: Re: Challenge to Jim Scotti
Date: 24 Apr 1998 04:06:20 GMT

In article <353CFFE2.9E0@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> M.C. Harrison
writes.
>> In your silly math descriptions of orbits, which you CANNOT
>> place together with your math description of gravity!  How can
>> you defend your elliptical math when you can't place it 
>> alongside your other precepts!  
>
> I can. The force of gravity is an inverse square law, which means
> a mass will experience a force due to another mass according to 
> the equation F=M1*M2/r^2 where M1 is one mass, M2 is the 
> other mass, and r is the separation of the masses. ... Motion of an 
> object is to proceed in a straight line at a constant velocity, but 
> with an acceleration, it will go faster in the direction of the
force, 
> V=v+At, where V is the new velocity and v is the old velocity, A 
> is the acceleration and t is the number of seconds that have passed. 
> A simple Basic program which moves an object according to this
> inverse square law can then be written, which by varying the rate
> and starting position of the object, will demonstrate the circular 
> path in question. Similarily, ellipses can be produced. 

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
You've made a leap!  Stop and explain this leap!  We're OK while moving
in a straight line, toward the gravitational giant.  That's your
inverse square law.  Then you say this can make an object go in a
circle.  And why is that?  Planetary confusion?  Indecisiveness?  Your
formula, your inverse square formula, was hardly indecisive.  Please
explain why an object moving away from, or toward, another object would
decide to go in circles?  You are varying the rate and starting
position of the object?  Why?  What force caused the rate to change? 
Orbits are notoriously steady!  Assume then, a steady rate of forward
motion, as this lines up with reality.  Changing the starting position?
Why would the orbiting planet decide to change position?  You don't
really mean that, you mean changing the ANGLE the object is pointing
in!  You've arbitrarily decided to torque the object!  What force
torqued the object?  

If you are about to say that an object moving at a line tangential to a
gravitational giant changes position because it is moving TOWARD the
giant, then this does not become a circle or an ellipse.  It simply
does not, except in the math formulas of those who will NOT put their
formulas all together!  In this hypothetical situation, a planet
turning toward a gravitational giant will NOT maintain a steady
distance.  The turn now has it CLOSER than it was a moment ago, and it
will turn yet more, and more, with each turn pointing it steadily in a
straight line TOWARD the giant, until the inevitable happens!  Why
would this not occur?  If the gravitational giant can turn the passing
object AT ALL, it can turn it more and more!  Each turn places it
closer!  Of course, in this argument, we are quite aware of the factors
you are missing in your formulas, and where you go astray 
in your logic.  We are asking these rhetorical questions in an attempt
to get you to THINK, which is unlikely.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <353CFFE2.9E0@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> M.C. Harrison
writes.
> Spookily enough, these computer models are very accurate in 
> predicting eclipses, the motion of comets, other planets and so 
> forth, all of which is consistent with:

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
No, you wrote the program to describe the phenomena, and when it does,
you say "amazing!"  If I say "spookily enough, the Sun rises in the
East every 24 hours!", this does not mean my formula which counts for
24 hours and then looks East is a great feat, it simply means you have
been observant and DESCRIBED a local phenomena in a manner that only
works in a limited way.  Take it to another world, and the rules won't
apply.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <353CFFE2.9E0@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> M.C. Harrison
writes.
>> So why would it TRUCK SIDEWAYS to get back to the other
>>  side of the ellipse for the inbound trip? What GRAVITY 
>> PULL causes it to  truck sideways? Gravity is suddently negated?
> 
> The object travels slowly and at a fairly consistent velocity, 
> until it falls sunwards, 

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
If it falls sunward, then why is it moving SIDEWAYS?  You've got the
thing slowing down, moving away from the Sun way out there on the
right.  Now it is moving slowly, slowed as the gravitational giant to
its back is pulling it backward, but instead of falling directly TOWARD
the Sun, it decides to go sideways, moving STEADILY sideways, not
veering toward the Sun?  What force pulls it sideways?  You've got it
making the same trek, from right to left, way out there in space, as it
did left to right when close to the Sun!  Why!  The speed is not the
same, as you've stated, it has slowed down.  Logically, it should start
to fall toward the Sun SOONER, when in the way out part of the ellipse,
no?  Why does it NOT do this?  

Please don't prate your ellipse descriptions again, as that is NOT
putting together your gravity formulas with the situation in hand.  Try
to put them side by side, without blinking.  If you ever manage to
actually do this, and come to grips with this glaring contradiction in
your math formulas describing your Universe, you will have make a giant
step.  Few on this usenet do this, and certainly the arrogant shepherds
do not do this.  They've got their positions, at major universities, to
think about, and the universities aren't into resolving discrepancies
either!  Let sleeping dogs lie, and inconsistencies and contradictions
be ignored!
(End ZetaTalk[TM])