Jonathan TATE <fr77@dial.pipex.com> wrote: > Ms Lieder, > Having read your responses, I am afraid that I will > need some more convincing answers before I publish > anything in an internationally distributed journal. > For example: Fair enough. You've raised a number of issues so I'll take them one by one, and this may take a few days. I'm also going to post my responses on sci.astro, as this relates to issues under discussion there too. Let's start with Newton. Jonathan TATE <fr77@dial.pipex.com> wrote: >> This logic assumes that Newton is correct, and as >> we have repeatedly argued,his so-called laws only >> describe what mankind observes, not DICTATE >> behavior. > > Based on what evidence? Common sense and observation > dictate that Newton's Laws of Motion have stood the > test of time, and no macro-experiment has yet disproved > them. I'm afraid that your statement requires rigorous > proof before it becomes credible. > >> Newton's description of what he observed, the so-called >> laws, do NOT stand when put together with your other >> laws and applied to the Moon. Take the size and >> composition of the Moon and Earth, and compute the >> gravity attraction between them by your inverse square >> law. > > The gravitational attraction between two bodies is > calculated using the standard gravitational formula. > Compositions are irrelevant, only mass. > >> This was an exercise done in a 1998 sci.astro debate, >> with the conclusion by your own mathematicians that >> the Moon, at its current distance, is EQUIVALENT to >> a body weighing several million trillion metric tons >> at the surface of the earth, while only orbiting at >> a speed of 1023m/s. > > Sorry - this is meaningless. At the surface of the > Earth? I fail to see the thrust of your argument here. The sci.astro Usenet postings are certainly public and on record. Below is the exercise the Zetas referred to, which concluded in the result that, per Newton, the Moon is not moving fast enough to remain in orbit, but should crash to Earth without delay. I will follow this posting with other giving more detail [D], referencing the Usenet articles where the discussion occurred, as well as the web address of the postings I put on the web at the ZetaTalk website. PROBLEM STATEMENT Put human math formulas on the same page, using real, not abstract, figures. [D1]: - Newton for centrifugal force vs gravity for size and distance of Moon [D2] - Inverse Square for gravity pull at distance between Earth and Moon [D3] CALCULATIONS Math challenged Nancy put forth a start [D4], and was rescued by Eric George [D5] and M.C. Harrison [D6] who inserted the right figures. Recap below. Earth diameter of 12756.27 km. Moon diameter of 3444.193 km. using volume of sphere as 4/3*Pi*R^3 volume of Moon is 0.019683 of Earth Earth is 1,237,857,886,976 km^3 in volume Moon is 21,392,457,765.53 km^3 in volume a metric ton is 1,000,000 grams granite density as 2.64-2.76 g/cm^3 Earth: 2,707,894,750,000,000,000,000 Metric Tons Moon: 54,997,342,400,000,000,000 Metric Tons Eric's reference Earth density: 5.5170 g/cm^3 Eric's reference Moon density: 3.3411 g/cm^3 Earth: 5.9763e+24 kg ( 5.9763e+21 Metric Tons) Moon: 7.3508e+22 kg ( 7.3508e+19 Metric Tons) gravitational equation F = G*m1*m2/r^2 acceleration of the moon due to gravity toward the Earth F = 2.20228796E+16 metric ton force or = 20,228,796,000,000,000 metric tons-force C = Pi*2*R = Pi*D gives a circular orbital speed of: 1023.183 m/s RESULT These figures showed a massive Moon, per the Inverse Square law [D7], of millions of trillions of metric tons of equivalent weight [D8] if on the surface of the Earth, moving at a rate of only 1023 m/s. ESCAPE - do not put Newton, Inverse Square, or familiar examples [D9] on the same page [D10]. - use an abstract of mass [D11], not reality of granite, in Newton's laws [D12]