Vector representations

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message om...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
Cut

Why do you say that? I questioned authority all the time. But on
tests, I knew enough to give them the answers they wanted, not my
personal opinion.

Ya know 'straight A', I think that if a few smart cookies like you _did_
express their own personal opinions instead of going along with the stock
answers; it could very well lead to the truth:

I do express my own opinions here. Why shouldn't I? I'm no more a
part of the physics community than you are, so I have nothing to lose.

Instead you leave it to me;
who is dumb enough to think that there _is_ a real _true answer_, but is
having a tough time trying to prove it.

Think about it...

To tell you the truth, I don't know where the real true answer lies.
I'm willing to consider all theories and question all theories. As
far as I'm concerned, it's "whatever works"!

Just keep questioning things like you have been. Who knows when it
might lead to something.

Double-A

Uncle Al wrote in message ...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:

There are two 'kinds' of motion: 'Inertial' motion [vi*t],
and 'Forced' [accelerated] motion [at²/2]: Which
together [vi*t + at²/2] make up the 'Resultant'
motion that we "see".

Cut
what kind of motion is a free fall orbit?

It's a gradually deteriorating; involuting elipse Unc! Eventually to
disappear; into whatever it's orbiting.
[snip]

Idiot ****Head. An orbit in vacuum only decays by gravitational
radiation unless it is doing things you yourself deny exist. It is
good for the age of the universe, ****Head. A satellite in circular
orbit is continuously accelerating without changing its speed. Why
don't you explain that to us, ****Head? ****Head, ****Head, ****Head,
****Head, ****Head...


Oh come on now Al, tell us what you really think. Let it all hang out! :-)

Harry C.

"Harry Conover" wrote in message
om...
Uncle Al wrote in message
...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:

There are two 'kinds' of motion: 'Inertial' motion [vi*t],
and 'Forced' [accelerated] motion [at²/2]: Which
together [vi*t + at²/2] make up the 'Resultant'
motion that we "see".

Cut
what kind of motion is a free fall orbit?

It's a gradually deteriorating; involuting elipse Unc! Eventually to
disappear; into whatever it's orbiting.
[snip]

An orbit in vacuum only decays by gravitational
radiation unless it is doing things you yourself deny exist. It is
good for the age of the universe, Shead. A satellite in circular
orbit is continuously accelerating without changing its speed. Why
don't you explain that to us,
Cut
Sure Uncle: There are _no_ circular orbits as such! There are _nearly_
circular orbits, and when the path of an orbit starts to recede away from
its focal point it must rise against the force of gravity, which slows it
down: When it slows down it will start to _fall_ faster; Which speeds it up.

For 'nearly' circular orbits, these changes in speed and direction are
imperceptable, and self compensating: For obviously elliptical orbits the
changes in speed and direction are obvious and also self compensating; to a
point.

A few years ago, I forget the details; it was found that satellite orbits do
decay; due to solar radiation. I'd speculate that this is in keeping with
George Lewis leSages hypothesis of mutual shielding: But this is only my
educated guess.


Oh come on now Al, tell us what you really think. Let it all hang out!
:-)

Harry C.