[RascalPuff]

begging your pardon, Greg:
Why isn't our atmosphere being stripped by the moon, while possibly being replaced by the earth's, flora, fauna and ocean?

(I prefer Ronstadt, I'm a devout chauvinist.)

-

[Graybeard]

Time, Tide and the Moon can wait.

Are you interested in discussing this (your) thread or not?

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Quote from your recent post, Greg:

"I am more interested in your 'take' on matter. Once I know it, I will better be able to understand your theory. Rascal, I don't understand how you can claim to understand gravity and at the same time appear puzzled as to why our atomsphere hasn't been stripped by the moon. I think you take the mickey quite often."
________________

In another thread by Jim Coyler about why the moon doesn't strip the outer atmosphere away from the earth, I replied. Meaningfully.
_________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Colyer
If the moon's gravity is strong enough to cause the tides, why does it not rip away earth's lighter atmosphere?

Astronomy http://jimcolyer.com/papers/entry?id=2

Dear Jim:
The moon effects aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric tides, indeed, these plateaus of material do indeed display heaves and sighs - as to why the more tenuous atmosphere isn't ripped away, well. I really don't know why...

(Maybe it is, and keeps being replenished by the ocean and the earth's flora and fauna?)

IMO, very good post.

Welcome to ToeQuest.

Regards,
- RP
________________________________

It is you - Greg - who transferred the subject of that thread to this one. It is the reason I asked you to offer your explanation to that thread, since I offered mine. Apparently you disagree with my answer, but, you don't say why - only that, judging by my answer, you don't understand how I can claim to understand gravity.

Now, do you want to - transposit threads, ontexts and issues and - talk about why the moon doesn't rip away the outer atmosphere of the earth - and speculate that I'm drinking too much mickey, or do you want to talk about the issue of this thread, or, do you want to come out of the Phx blue - with Blue Bayou, starring Roy Orbison and Linda Rondstat, proclaiming that, although Orbison wrote it, L. Rondstadt sings it better?

I am aware that the issue is about what matter - and gravity - is.

You may or not play your volunteered part of Aristotle, whereas the part you cast me for - Democritus: was talking about the smallest divisible unit (colloquially termed 'particles' - not one of which has yet been determined). I have spoken of - and resolved - Zeno's paradox, also, though I expect that Zeno (Xeno) may have deliberately genrated the riddle, just to stimulate thought, and a proper solution (namely, the includision of the factor of time, rather than its exclusion).

You truclulently say you've read Part VII at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie. That - and all the chapters preceding it - has to do with the causal identity of gravity, and an unprecedented explanation for the cause of quantum mechanics. The information is there - what would you care to focus on?

Not long ago you said someone told you not to believe a word I say... (A Jonestown, Guyana survivor?)
You also recently proclaimed 'I'm watching you'. All of these symptoms indicate that you bear watching, Greg...
(We're watching you... You seem to be leaning Mickey Mouseward.......)

Best regards,
- RP

[quanta07]

Why isn't our atmosphere being stripped by the moon, while possibly being replaced by the earth's, flora, fauna and ocean?

Both the earth and moon have a spherical acceleration fields, 'gravity'.
If we examine a line from earth center to moon center, along this line the moons gravity has maximum effect.
Where this line intersects earth surface,
there is a reduction in intensity of acceleration at this point,
Earth 'gravity' is weakened.
This results in a 'rising' of sea level and a 'bulging' of upper atmosphere surface as the moon is directly overhead.
The presence of the moon reduces the effects of earth 'gravity', while passing overhead, creating sea swells that follow the moons orbital position, tides.
Happy Thoughts....Q7

[RascalPuff]

Good post, Q7. This is of course in response to Jim Colyer's thead of inquiry regarding the moon's pull on the earth. Thanks for the response, though the issue was shifted to this thread by Greg - perhaps he may explain why.

Best regards,
- RP

[Graybeard]

Dear Rascal .... First of all, 'taking the mickey' in Australia is the polite way of saying 'taking the piss'. In other words it means, to patronise or make fun of anothers understanding on a subject, by agreeing rather than disagreeing, even though you may know the others understanding is incorrect. To perpetuate a falsehood in the furtherance of humour. It does not mean to drink too much ... ROTFLMAO

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

You may or not play your volunteered part of Aristotle, whereas the part you cast me for - Democritus: was talking about the smallest divisible unit (colloquially termed 'particles' - not one of which has yet been determined).

You, old friend, have chosen the part of Aristotle, not me, please re-check the above post number 27. I admit I assigned it, but your views on continuity suit you for it.

As for the Moon, who gives a Flying Fu**k. The reason I questioned your understanding of gravity is because of your answer quoted below.

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

........as to why the more tenuous atmosphere (of earth) isn't ripped away, (by the moon) well. I really don't know why... (Maybe it is, and keeps being replenished by the ocean and the earth's flora and fauna?)
Regards,
- RP

This is either 'taking the mickey' or shows an appalling understanding of gravity. One or the other. Which one ?? Compare your answer to Quanta07, who gives a correct scientific explanation. IMO.

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

Not long ago you said someone told you not to believe a word I say... (A Jonestown, Guyana survivor?)
You also recently proclaimed 'I'm watching you'. All of these symptoms indicate that you bear watching, Greg...
(We're watching you... You seem to be leaning Mickey Mouseward.......)

LOL.... I think you are making too much of this. In other threads where you have posted your ideas on gravity as an unlimited .... (ok, ok 4th if you say so) dimension, other posters, and without searching I can't name names, have claimed that your ideas and claims already form part of public opinion, right or not. Forget it, its nothing, sorry I mentioned it.

Now can we get back to the subject under discussion?

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

Post Script:
Greg , please include this post while considering our ongoing discussion (...so far there hasn't been much discussion ... ) on The Causal Identity of Gravity, and also how continuous field theory may be translated as being the cause of 'discontinuous wave - quantum - mechanics', as presented in the extapolating spiral issue - above in previous posts, here. Best regards, - RP

I spent a weekend in the mountains, inside a volcanic rim about 5klms across, with the fire burning, (log fire .. not volcanic) reading chapter VII, or 7. I don't have a problem with it yet. On face value, that is. However further discussion may change this. Therefore I wish to ask you some questions about matter where I feel we may have different opinions.

Is this OK with you ??????????

A YES or NO will do for me, and don't mention the fu**king moon. OK


cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

From my "Principia" edition of 1726

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

LAWS OF MOTION

Law I. Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by force impressed theron.

Law II. The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

Law III. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

Newtons Law II is written as F = ma (lowercase 'm', lowercase 'a')

Lowercase 'a' is defined as the acceleration that galileo defined and measured in Pisa and Padua.

Lowercase 'm'. Hmmmmmmm .... it is one of the properties of matter. It is measured by the response of an object to a force. The larger the 'm' the smaller the response 'a' to the imposed force. The full name given to 'm' is the inertial mass. We can use Newton's equation to distinguish amongst masses.

Set up objects of mass x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, etc in proportionate ratios and apply the same force to each object and a different value for 'a' will be read for each mass. Do this thousands of times and we can then arbitrarily define a standard object. The world standard is the kilogram. We now have a method of determining all 'm' (emmms) in kilograms or decimals thereof.

Newtons equation works for any force. Forces are part of nature. There are four of them at the moment. In Newtons day scientists were only beginning to learn about one of them, gravity. The 'F' in Newtons equation stands for any force. When you wish to use this equation you must first define the force you are going to use.

Newton wrote down the expression for 'F' where it defines gravity. This of course is the 'Universal Law of gravitation'. All objects exert gravitational forces on one another. The strength of the gravitational force is dependent on how far apart the objects are, and, HOW MUCH STUFF IS IN THEM. Newton relaised that the STUFF must be atomic or 'particulate' in nature. The Universal law is an inverse law, double the distance between two objects, the force weakens to one fourth, etc.

To quantify the 'Universal Law' Newton came up with a formula. That is for the Earth and the Moon as an example (particularly relevant considering the aforegoing posts): All the STUFF in the Earth times All the STUFF in the Moon divided by the square of the distance between them and the result multiplied by a constant.



Now we have two definitions for mass. We have an Uppercase 'M' as in STUFF, and a Lowercase 'm' as in 'inertial mass'. These are two DIFFERENT attributes of Matter.

Uppercase 'M' is the STUFF that pulls on another object.
Lowercase 'm' is the STUFF in an object that resists a force (NOT REPELS) and determines the resulting motion.

Galileo experiments in Pisa strongly suggested that (M = m). Newton did not understand why they appeared equal. He experimented and showed equality to about 1%. M/m = 1.00 to two decimal places.

In 1922 Baron Roland Eotvos proved that their equality was better than five parts per billion.Today it has been confirmed to better than 12 decimal places. this provides the full explanation of Galileos Tower of Pisa experiments. The gravitational mass (M) of a cannonball might be 1000 times greater than a ball bearing, which means the gravitational force on the cannonball is 1000 times stronger, but it also means the inertial mass (m) that resists the gravitational force is 1000 times stronger. ergo, they both fall at the same rate. Consequently, they must consist of similar discrete 'units' of matter, but differ in quantity

Newtons two equations define an 'atomic' or 'particulate' structure for matter. All experiments since then have suggested this.

Rascal,
Do you agree that matter has these two separate properties?
In relation to 'gravity as a fourth dimension' you appear to treat these as having unequal values, or to confuse them?


cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

From my "Principia" edition of 1726

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

LAWS OF MOTION

Law I. Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by force impressed theron.

Law II. The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

Law III. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

Newtons Law II is written as F = ma (lowercase 'm', lowercase 'a')

Lowercase 'a' is defined as the acceleration that galileo defined and measured in Pisa and Padua.

Lowercase 'm'. Hmmmmmmm .... it is one of the properties of matter. It is measured by the response of an object to a force. The larger the 'm' the smaller the response 'a' to the imposed force. The full name given to 'm' is the inertial mass. We can use Newton's equation to distinguish amongst masses.

Set up objects of mass x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, etc in proportionate ratios and apply the same force to each object and a different value for 'a' will be read for each mass. Do this thousands of times and we can then arbitrarily define a standard object. The world standard is the kilogram. We now have a method of determining all 'm' (emmms) in kilograms or decimals thereof.

Newtons equation works for any force. Forces are part of nature. There are four of them at the moment. In Newtons day scientists were only beginning to learn about one of them, gravity. The 'F' in Newtons equation stands for any force. When you wish to use this equation you must first define the force you are going to use.

Newton wrote down the expression for 'F' where it defines gravity. This of course is the 'Universal Law of gravitation'. All objects exert gravitational forces on one another. The strength of the gravitational force is dependent on how far apart the objects are, and, HOW MUCH STUFF IS IN THEM. Newton relaised that the STUFF must be atomic or 'particulate' in nature. The Universal law is an inverse law, double the distance between two objects, the force weakens to one fourth, etc.

To quantify the 'Universal Law' Newton came up with a formula. That is for the Earth and the Moon as an example (particularly relevant considering the aforegoing posts): All the STUFF in the Earth times All the STUFF in the Moon divided by the square of the distance between them and the result multiplied by a constant.



Now we have two definitions for mass. We have an Uppercase 'M' as in STUFF, and a Lowercase 'm' as in 'inertial mass'. These are two DIFFERENT attributes of Matter.

Uppercase 'M' is the STUFF that pulls on another object.
Lowercase 'm' is the STUFF in an object that resists a force (NOT REPELS) and determines the resulting motion.

Galileo experiments in Pisa strongly suggested that (M = m). Newton did not understand why they appeared equal. He experimented and showed equality to about 1%. M/m = 1.00 to two decimal places.

In 1922 Baron Roland Eotvos proved that their equality was better than five parts per billion.Today it has been confirmed to better than 12 decimal places. this provides the full explanation of Galileos Tower of Pisa experiments. The gravitational mass (M) of a cannonball might be 1000 times greater than a ball bearing, which means the gravitational force on the cannonball is 1000 times stronger, but it also means the inertial mass (m) that resists the gravitational force is 1000 times stronger. ergo, they both fall at the same rate. Consequently, they must consist of similar discrete 'units' of matter, but differ in quantity

Newtons two equations define an 'atomic' or 'particulate' structure for matter. All experiments since then have suggested this.

Rascal,
Do you agree that matter has these two separate properties?
In relation to 'gravity as a fourth dimension' you appear to treat these as having unequal values, or to confuse them?


cool bananas ... greg

________________________________________

Originally Posted by Graybeard

Dear Rascal .... Perhaps my sense of humour has appeared hostile ... I assure you it wasn't .... However, if Michael has read it this way then perhaps you have to.

In which case I apologise. genuinely!

greg.

_________________________

Dear Greg:
Your concern is truly touching. Not to worry. We've become good friends here and you have latitude to be personable with me. Aussie terms can sometimes emerge a little on what appears to be the side of intrigue, when they're light heartedly intended and a mark of comaraderie and confidence. Probly misleading counterparts for it in American idioms.

Presently I'm looking for a letter I once wrote Lloyd G. (who I respect and have learned much from), concerning the fact that 'Gravity is the 4th dimension' is an obscure household word - 'public opinion' - and that, for better or worse, I am the originator of that term, since 1959 and through ten widely distributed small press editions since.
Lloyd recenty expressed it, 'of course gravity is the 4th dimension, that's obvious'...

As I have said before, I will gladly shake hands with anyone who can precede my copyright of and distribution of that (unique, unprecedented) phrase.

Same thing 'Electricity and Magnetism are the 5th and 6th Dimensions'.
Since '99 it's all over the net, with as many 'authors' - some of whom are in cross eyed contention about who pilfered it (from my original work) first.
I don't own the phenomena, but I am it's original spokesman and translator.
If it's wrong it's my mistake and if it's right it's Einstein's (previously unrecognized) lesson.

I don't do much math at all, you'll find my work almost entirely bereft of it.
I do some geometry as you may have noticed.

Math is extremely valuable of course, but in many cases what it alludes to is not comprehended non mathematically. What I try to do is comprehend what otherwise cryptic math really means. ''Force' for example - we know what it does, but, like matter, mass and energy, we aren't all that astue on what it is...

Okay: E=MC squared... We're still howling at the moon on the meaning of that, for example (among other things, I say it means gravity is the 4th dimension).

What's energy, what's mass, what's matter, what's C; why, in an algebraic consideration where all the factors are interchangeable, is everything squared from everything?

(Physically and spatially accelerating universe - like The Force - is strong here...)

The work and results of Roland Von Eotvos is cited in my book for its contributions.
I don't think matter has two roles - I think it has everything to do with everything. I consider it the source of all, and as the source of all, it is a wave pattern (by any of its many other monikers) of greater or lesser density and morphology - having different dynamics in different circumstances. The ST of all ST's and the most dominant (if unrecognized) of all paradigms...

Don't worry about our friendship my good friend, we will both carefully guard it together, as we are. Mike is very good for the forum though it seems a lot of people don't fathom or appreciate that - I think he's a mediator, a moderator and a mentor. I like Mike a lot. Thanking him for inspiring you to touch bases with me, for example.

I don't think my answer to Jim Coyler was so bad...
Hey. Why don't you respond to him and Q7 on the moon. (I subjected the moon in a different thread from Jim Coyler and the next thing I knew it was in 'The Causal Identity of Gravity' is how that happened - and it's all yer fault you Ozzie misanthrope!!! )

Yeah. Gravity is the 4th dimension may or not be 'public opinion', but right or wrong, I originated it as an author (and yer darn right I'm exultant of it), beginning in Naples, Italy in '59. It was internationally distributed throught the Whole Earth Catalogue's Portola Institute, in 1970. Nine editions later I'm still talking about it with people who simultaneously disagree with me and add, 'of course gravity's the 4th dimension - that's obvious'. It sure is. And it's nothing short of amazing that - until further certified notice - no one noticed it earlier.

Take care my friend.
I hope you don't mind if I post this in the open forum.
Thanks for your concern, and yours too, Michael.

Best Regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
http://forums.delphiforums.com/Kaiduorkhon

[Graybeard]

Thanks for that Rascal ... sometimes when you only have text to communicate it can be very easy to misinterpret anothers intentions.

My swearing and criticising I meant as fair comment ... Michael pulled me up...

Your right about Michael ... without his laizzez faire personality this forum would be a dull place.

cool bananas ... greg

PS: I was hoping that the two different definitions of Mass would give me a toehold on your cliffhanger of a theory.

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

The work and results of Roland Von Eotvos is cited in my book for its contributions.

I don't think matter has two roles - I think it has everything to do with everything. I consider it the source of all, and as the source of all, it is a wave pattern (by any of its many other monikers) of greater or lesser density and morphology - having different dynamics in different circumstances. The ST of all ST's and the most dominant (if unrecognized) of all paradigms...

Ok ... I can live with this. I don't do a lot of Maths myself. I am very good at Maths, but unfortunately I never had the luxury of being taught Calculus. This is something I intend to remedy by teaching myself in the near future. I feel that your theory has a 'weak flank' when it comes to the attributes of Mass. But we are not trying to cover all angles from a Macro viewpoint at the moment.

However I have other weapons in my arsenal that should cause you to, at the least, rethink your position on whether matter is continuous or not. These weapons are chemical in nature, and the maths is simple. be prepared, will post here soon

greg

[MJA]

[quote=Graybeard;32759]From my "Principia" edition of 1726




Just One question if you please,

In the above equation: What is the numerical equivalence of F?

Thanks,

MJA