In my post Peter and Neal Graneau Explain the Importance of Newton's Third Law and Action-at-a-Distance, I quoted from their book Newton versus Einstein:
Thanks! Gravity does not explain the stable orbits of planets and moons, and it does not explain the ecliptic. Gravity works with unmeasurable constants like the mass of planets or the sun.
Like Leibniz said in an earlier post, it seems doubtful to take statements about the model of gravity and to apply them more generally. If a model (like gravity) with interconnectedness makes correct predictions, it does not follow that interconnectedness is real.
Can you elaborate or provide sources for this statement? (“Gravity does not explain the stable orbits of planets and moons, and it does not explain the ecliptic.”). Does this just mean gravity doesn’t explain how planets and moons got into stable orbit at particular ecliptic angles?
just commenting where John's blog leads my thoughts.
The "ecliptic" is the name of the level space all planets move in.
If the moon's weight decreased a tiny bit, gravity would no longer compensate for its speed, and the moon would fly off into space. So gravity does not predict a stable orbit for the moon.
I remember reading here that Weber hinted at a model with a stable orbit. So thst if the moon had a small disturbance, it would move back into orbit. That would help explain how the moon got into orbit in the first place.
Hi thinking-turtle and Tim! If I am not mistaken, each planet has its own ecliptic, which corresponds to the plane, passing through the sun, in which that planet revolves around the sun.
With respect to the apparent stability of the current solar system, with all of its comets, planets, planetoids, asteroids, moons, this may well involve some active behaviour on the part of these bodies, involving mutual exchange of electric charges. But before I write about these kinds of twentieth-century speculations, I need to work through what comes before.
Indeed it does not explain the ecliptic and that is one of those in-your-face exceptions that science loves to ignore!
I find a similar problem with eclipses - that our Moon just happens to sit in an orbit where it's diameter perfectly eclipses the Sun 400 times more distant seems a little odd to me to attribute only to gravity. A little uncanny. I'm not saying it couldn't have that orbit, but you would expect that to be an unusual case were it due to gravity alone, especially given all those random collisions the Moon is supposed to have endured.
And how you are supposed to have Venus spinning in retrograde and Uranus orbiting along it's polar axis and yet somehow formed by accretion but without some pretty lively Theomachy in the Solar System is beyond me.
@thinking-turtle and @Robe Warrior, the topic that I have been focussing on in the past few posts is whether attraction or repulsion, such as in gravity or magnetism, exist, or whether there is only mechanical motion of particles. The first position seems to be have been held by Gilbert, Kepler (at least partially) and Newton, while the second by Descartes, Huygens and Leibniz. The topic has not been whether Newtonian gravity is correct, or what aspects of observation in the current solar system cannot be explained therewith.
Action at a distance still troubles me even with the Electric Universe model having an aether. It is logically absurd in the standard model. I just don't think we're seeing the picture clearly enough yet.
Thanks! Gravity does not explain the stable orbits of planets and moons, and it does not explain the ecliptic. Gravity works with unmeasurable constants like the mass of planets or the sun.
Like Leibniz said in an earlier post, it seems doubtful to take statements about the model of gravity and to apply them more generally. If a model (like gravity) with interconnectedness makes correct predictions, it does not follow that interconnectedness is real.
Can you elaborate or provide sources for this statement? (“Gravity does not explain the stable orbits of planets and moons, and it does not explain the ecliptic.”). Does this just mean gravity doesn’t explain how planets and moons got into stable orbit at particular ecliptic angles?
Thanks for your reply, I'm
just commenting where John's blog leads my thoughts.
The "ecliptic" is the name of the level space all planets move in.
If the moon's weight decreased a tiny bit, gravity would no longer compensate for its speed, and the moon would fly off into space. So gravity does not predict a stable orbit for the moon.
I remember reading here that Weber hinted at a model with a stable orbit. So thst if the moon had a small disturbance, it would move back into orbit. That would help explain how the moon got into orbit in the first place.
Hi thinking-turtle and Tim! If I am not mistaken, each planet has its own ecliptic, which corresponds to the plane, passing through the sun, in which that planet revolves around the sun.
With respect to the apparent stability of the current solar system, with all of its comets, planets, planetoids, asteroids, moons, this may well involve some active behaviour on the part of these bodies, involving mutual exchange of electric charges. But before I write about these kinds of twentieth-century speculations, I need to work through what comes before.
Indeed it does not explain the ecliptic and that is one of those in-your-face exceptions that science loves to ignore!
I find a similar problem with eclipses - that our Moon just happens to sit in an orbit where it's diameter perfectly eclipses the Sun 400 times more distant seems a little odd to me to attribute only to gravity. A little uncanny. I'm not saying it couldn't have that orbit, but you would expect that to be an unusual case were it due to gravity alone, especially given all those random collisions the Moon is supposed to have endured.
And how you are supposed to have Venus spinning in retrograde and Uranus orbiting along it's polar axis and yet somehow formed by accretion but without some pretty lively Theomachy in the Solar System is beyond me.
@thinking-turtle and @Robe Warrior, the topic that I have been focussing on in the past few posts is whether attraction or repulsion, such as in gravity or magnetism, exist, or whether there is only mechanical motion of particles. The first position seems to be have been held by Gilbert, Kepler (at least partially) and Newton, while the second by Descartes, Huygens and Leibniz. The topic has not been whether Newtonian gravity is correct, or what aspects of observation in the current solar system cannot be explained therewith.
sorry I was going a little off topic
Action at a distance still troubles me even with the Electric Universe model having an aether. It is logically absurd in the standard model. I just don't think we're seeing the picture clearly enough yet.