A small selection of any of Aristotle's quotes points to why he is still a revered figure of scholarship today. And why his irrational explanations of motion and descent could be held as rational by scholarship for almost two thousand years. And why it would take a shakeup of the order of the Copernican revolution to open an allowing doorway to new ideas.
Outside the inverse square law of gravity strength diminish, post Aristotelian ideas are unfortunate reactions to Aristotle's hold on scholarship. The 'inertia' and 'mutual gravitation' components of the Copernican revolution are not rational explanations of either motion or descent. To explain........
It would have been the high tide under the moon that gave Sir Isaac Newton this impression of a falling apple 'drawing' the earth as it fell. From there, Sir Isaac developed a formula to explain the gravity of the universe. One that nominally specified one direction of fall was part of the cause of an opposite direction of fall.
The initial presumption will have been a 'drawing' force existing within all masses. One that extends outwards to all the other masses of the universe.
From his starting point an estimate of the drawing force of a particular mass being equivalent to its (his) second law effect on any other mass in the universe has followed. For quantification of the acceleration this force causes and as stated in his end of life quote, Sir Isaac has assessed it would be in a direct proportion of the quantity of the particular mass. And this direct proportion would diminish with the inverse of the square of distance (d) from the mass.
When this quantification of acceleration is done it is found that presumed second law momentum changes for any two particles of the universe are of an identical scalar nature. And, in the classroom today, these presumed momentum changes are what is given as the base of Newton's force vectors of the mutual gravitation of the entire universe.
A linking force between any two particles born out of
1/ An assessment of individual particles having a drawing force within
2/ A confusion of presumed momentum changes
is not a mutual linking force between every two particles of the universe. To the detriment of the development of our earthly tidal intelligence, a few centuries ago it's scholarship about to embrace an unsound declaration about every particle in the the universe.
The unedifying scholastic acceptance of the proclamation centres on Sir Isaac not explaining to his peers the dual roles he had mass simultaneously playing within his law. Which were....
1/The equivalence of its gravity field
2/ Being subject to an acceleration caused by a gravity field
Sir Isaac expected multiplication of quantities divided by their distance apart squared to make each mass a cause of acceleration and, at the same time, be caused to accelerate.
Allowing that there is not other explanation, best of luck to classrooms today trying to understand the universe through a manipulating of two momentum changes into one causal force 'drawing' every two particles of the universe together.
The first real academic enthusiasm Sir Isaac's 'mutual gravitation' caused seems to have been the prediction of outer planet Neptune. Without being privy to exactly how this was done..................
The constant found in Cavendish experiments was never a constant of the mutual gravitation of the universe.........
If the law is left as two forces, as implied by the adjunct of the earth and the moon applying equal and opposite forces upon each other, the two forces would have the same scalar content. The same vector content, at best an interesting lost in the cloud cuckoo land of mathematical physics argument. In reality, contemptuous of life on earth.
Equal and opposite forces doesn't comply with "in proportion of its quantity". The contradiction is glaring.
As either a solitary force or as two forces, the angle that Sir Isaac's formula is most errant is its divergence from it must be proportion of its quantity. If it existed, the force of the formula varies with distribution of mass between M and m.
If, experimentally, 3 kilograms is shown to be 'drawn' towards 7 kilograms more than 4 kilograms towards 6 kilograms, the classrooms of the world know that Sir Isaac's mutual gravitation is a misnomer. According to the formula, 4 kilograms should be 'drawn' towards 6 kilograms by a factor of 8/7 (24/21) relative to 3 kilograms towards 7 kilograms.
For a genuine mathematician, the conflict between mutual gravitation occurring through a product of masses and the more massive the body, the greater its 'drawing' ability is arithmetically inarguable.
From one of Sir Isaac's books, a mutual gravitation declaration in terms of what we (even though your Sir Isaac's penchant for having his portrait painted would indicate he was seeing himself in a historical light, 'we' would mean not us today but Sir Isaac's peers of the time) must do. The highlight colours have been added to the command.....
Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth, gravitate toward the earth; and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain; that the moon likewise, according to the quantity of its matter, gravitates toward the earth; that on the other hand our sea gravitates toward the moon; and all the planets mutually one toward another; and the comets in like manner towards the sun; we must, in consequence of this rule, universally allow, that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation.
The declaration of what his peers must do was necessarily vague. By beginning inhope of proof, Sir Isaac has known he wasn't necessarily dealing in a complete sense. This admission of uncertainty is his honest message to his peers.
They severally contain is addition. Not the product of quantities that appears in the actual law. There isn't evidence to suggest a scientific frame of earth mind when Sir Isaac declared mass multiplied by mass as the gravity base of the universe. His end of life words of in proportion of its quantity is where he had his head in a happier state.
The moon gravitating towards the earth according to the quantity of its matter is in stark contradiction of the moon gravitates towards the earth in accordance with the product of earth and moon quantities (the M x m of the or his actual law).
Words highlighted in vermillion are where the main problem of academic conscience and character resides. Our sea (under the moon) is notan astronomical observation of a gravitation towards the moon in the slightest. It is impossible for an ocean or anything at all to simultaneously gravitate in opposite directions.
The reality is our sea(under your moon) onlygravitates towards the earth. This gravitation is less because of the interruption caused by the moon's inverse square law to your earth's beautiful inverse square law. A lesser weighting/gravitating in one direction is not a weighting/gravitating in an opposite direction. Once that is understood by your earth schoolchildren, Sir Isaac's command of what "we" must universally allow is by the bye. Conversely, your earth schoolchildren could all just heave a sigh of earth relief and start your education going properly. Because of your Sir Isaac's hypnotic apple story, you are insanely muddling your adult scholarship up with a scantily thought about axiom that has two inverse square laws becoming one and then having the wherewithal to act in two directions at once.
The difference between gravitates towards your beautiful earth less and your fictitious gravitates towards your moon a little bit is significant with respect of further understandings of inverse square laws. And the high tide on the far side of your beautiful planet definitely is not a gravitation towards your moon. If it was a gravitation to do with your moon in the slightest, it would be a gravitation away from your moon.
When an earth professor wakes up, Sir Isaac's use of the word endowed should indicate that Sir Isaac's law of gravity at best was incomplete. Endowed leaves the reasons of how and why physically unexplained and also adrift from a mathematical foundation.
To tune in with the inner dynamics of this beautiful almost round planet of yours, squeezing earth party balloons may help your earth adolescents or any still hypnotized mathematical physics professor or any one of you at all. The analogy is imperfect. But it does place a view of equal and opposite downward earth forces in your hands as your earth vision takes in the changing shape of the earth party balloon.
Realistically, modern world integrity requires school teachers to understand that inverse square laws are singular and cannot be conjoined with every other inverse square law in the universe through a multiplication of particle mass contents.
That's not a single wave. As the earth turns on its axis, it's the ocean rising over a six hour period. Every second time an ocean ascends, it's against a direction of fall towards the moon. If perchance 'mutual gravitation' existed, reasonably obviously the answer every second time has nothing to do with the concept. Around the other side of the earth, the moon's gravity is in the wrong direction to draw an ocean towards itself.
All that has to be done to learn why one high tide is a rising of the earth against a direction of fall towards the moon is a little equal and opposite inverse square law arithmetic in between the earth and the moon. And then an application of Sir Isaac Newton's third law to the core of the earth.
Newton's third law = to every force there is an equal and opposite force.
As soon as teachers squeeze balloons in front of classrooms, a classic understanding of the tides of the earth down at the core of the earth is within the grasp of children around the world. As well a better standard of mathematical thought about the way the inverse square laws of the universe interact should ensue, etc.
Perhaps surprisingly but reasonably obviously, the tides understood leaves Albert Einstein's theories and mathematical physics itself as the leftover intellectual disorders of ancient irrelevancies.
If there is only the mass type of mass, etc........
The stating of the answer one more time (above) is the answer to where academia is currently tuned to a rationale beneath the intelligence and dignity of an earth schoolchild. The very idea of the universe existing in two forms that measure the same should tell academia that this would actually mean there is only the mass type of mass.
In simplistic form, Aristotle's ideas were force has to be applied for motion to continue. And more massive objects descend to earth at a greater rate. Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton's laws are currently honoured for having taken earth scholarship past Aristotle. With the academic concept of a mass existing in two forms that are the same, modern classrooms are unfortunately still snared within Aristotle's irrationalities........
Aristotle's view was force continued to be applied for a motion to continue. Galileo, or Galileo's era, deduced that a quality inherent of matter called 'inertia' was the reason a motion continued. This quality of matter both resisted a change of a state of motion and was the reason a motion perseveres.
Before Galileo the ages already had an answer to Aristotle's various ideas of how an original impetus continued to be applied beyond actual contact. This pre Galileo answer was actually called impetus (link) by its proclaimers. A motion supplied to an object by a force continues beyond the application of the force was what Frenchman Jean Buridan stated two centuries before the life of Galileo and fifteen centuries after the life of Aristotle.
What Sir Isaac missed out on understanding about the collisions within his cradle is the simple arithmetical precursor of the conservation of the momentum of collided objects. Which is.........
Arithmetically momentum is uniform.
Meaning, when one number represents a mass quantity and another number represents the magnitude of the velocity vector of that mass, there is only one answer when those two numbers are multiplied together.
Newton's cradle is dependent upon this arithmetical/vector fact. Newton's mind, though, left the velocity component of momentum out of momentum and then mistakenly went along with Galileo and called this simple fact of arithmetic "inertial mass"..........
Whereas Aristotle had dreamt up ways of how force was still applied post physical application, all he was trying to understand is the product of mass x velocity = not multiple answers..........
Current classrooms can look back and see that there was simply no need for Galileo and kind to invent quantity having an untraceable quality within called 'inertia' to get scholarship past Aristotle. Beyond Galileo's life and without mention of the word, 'inertia' is considered to be contained within Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion. That first law.........
"Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed."
Modern physics teachers need to dramatically smarten up to the fact that he word 'inertia' is not written within Sir Isaac's first law of motion. And that the word is unneeded to explain any facet of motion. What is required is an understanding that arithmetically momentum is uniform/conserved. And Newton's second and third laws. The most needed point of scholarship since Aristotle being reading Newton's first law of motion as stated leaves that law as the product of mass and velocity with his second law tacked on. Or reworded with Newton's second law left off the end and rationalizing 'the perseverance of a state of rest' to be scholarship contradicting its own terms, Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion reads.......
"In its direction of travel, the momentum of a moving body is uniformly conserved."
That's a simple fact of arithmetic applied to a scalar quantity and a vector quantity. The inclusion of 'momentum' and the exclusion of the unmentioned 'inertia' both being critical to current physics teachers when they stand in front of a class. If you are currently studying junior school physics, in clear and concise terms, that's Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion for you. The product of velocity and quantity = uniform motion. Not quantity = uniform motion as the teacher implies when he or she teaches Sir Isaac's first law of motion to you. And the resistance to a change of state of free momentum only comes to be when an external force is applied. Then the resistance is explained simply by Sir Isaac Newton's third law.
When 'inertial mass' gets to be understood to really be the arithmetical conservation of an unhindered momentum vector, there is only one type of mass. The answer to why quantity magnitude is irrelevant to descent rate is something Aristotle was not in a position to understand. But something that Sir Isaac Newton and his peers could have. That being weight and free fall are both direct factors of the magnitude of an inverse square law.
1/ Weight magnitude on earth is a direct factor of the magnitude of the earth's inverse square law.
If Sir Isaac's second law is a legitimate weight measuring tool, that's inarguable. What directly follows is.....
2/ Free fall rate towards the earth is a direct factor of the magnitude of the earth's inverse square law.
As Sir Isaac's second law stands, its use has a question mark against it as a weight measuring tool. Weight is a mass that isn't accelerating and Sir Isaac's second law specifies a force causes mass to accelerate. If the second law is to be used to measure weight, weight needs a definition that reflects acceleration.
If that definition of weight is correct, it says a potential rate of acceleration causes force (weight). And that an invented force (called gravity) does not cause weight.
As has been accepted for a number of centuries, free fall rate is not a factor of Aristotle's mass magnitude of the falling body. The other thing is a falling body being comprised of two mass magnitudes acting against each other is an unneeded descent explainer.
Importantly, if or when the simple inertial mass - conservation of momentum confusion is recognized at the higher scholarship level, the other flaws of reasoning in Albert Einstein's theories are there for the reckoning. While some of the mathematical procedures that have come out of Einstein's theories may be useful, they are not based on logical or useful physics. For instance the way inverse square law and motion magnitudes affect the rate clocks measure time, etc.
There is a culture that says things like "you don't have to be Einstein to understand that". The business of considering Albert Einstein to be someone who would not see mass existing in two forms that are the same as unintelligent is unthinkable. Likewise Einstein not arithmetically assessing that the earth's inverse square law could reach the sun.
Beyond holding Albert Einstein at the original Aristotle standard, getting planetary motion right in the classroom is the cultural chore in front of those in charge of world education. As teaching procedures are in this digital age, the sun and its inverse square law are errantly motionless on junior school computers.
Kepler's Third Law = The Planets Are Pendulums
This is not exactly where the fixed sun mistake began, the idea traces back to the B.C. period. But this is where the idea hooked itself into accepted scholarship.
With the benefit of hindsight and modern telescopes, we can see that Nicholas Copernicus articulated this 'royal throne' mistaken conclusion regarding 'therefore the sun is the centre of the universe'.
The point has always been, whether in the centre of the universe or not, planets could not be suspended above a fixed sun. Galileo Galilei and then Sir Isaac Newton built an impossible logic of planetary motion into the olden fixed star notion of the universe. Who knows what the future could hold. But, when it's both impossible and untrue, it would be unethical and improper for modern academics to continue giving their imprimatur to fixed sun planetary motion tutelage in junior schools.
Apart from being impossible, Galileo's explanation of planetary motion never fitted with any of Johannes Kepler's laws of planetary motion.
Kepler's Third Law
A century or so after the life and times of Nicholas Copernicus, Johannes Kepler meticulously developed three laws of planetary motion. One of these laws, the third, said nothing but that there is a causal link between the magnitude of the sun's inverse square law at a planet's distance from the sun and the average speed of a planet relative to the sun. That link simply cannot be investigated through the motionless inverse square logic of Newtonian physics.
The non Newtonian solution to Galileo's misapprehension and planetary motion itself is all descents are a relatively slow moving motion following a curved path. The superior speed of an inverse square law relative to the motions caused within an inverse square law by an inverse square law is where contemporary physics should be at by now. The major motion of Sir Isaac Newton's legendary falling apple was a curve within the progress of the earth's inverse square around the galaxy. Sir Isaac's idea of the apple falling towards the centre of the earth simply was not true. Like anything else that falls to earth, the apple fell towards the path of the earth.
This relatively slow moving curved motion can become an orbit if the descent falls through either of........
a/ The path of an inverse square law.
b/ An axis at a right angle to the path of the inverse square law.
As with the above illustration, falling objects accelerate towards these axii. If acceleration takes the falling object through one of these axis without falling as far as the surface of the earth, analogous with a thrown up ball, the object's motion is then an ascension from the other side of that axis. Instead of accelerating towards the axis, the momentum previously gained in descent towards the axis causes the object to ascend from the other side of the axis. And the base element of an 'orbital' suspension is born.
That base element being rising above the path of a moving inverse square law or an axis perpendicular to the path of a moving inverse square law.
Understandably Aristotle and other pre Copernican fixed earth scholars were short of seeing this. For a Copernican scholar, it is bread and butter physics.
Diagram of descent subsequently causing ascent equalling an orbit around a moving inverse square law/gravity field.
Bit annoying but this means the motion of the earth's inverse square law is the key to a satellite orbiting within the earth's inverse square law. That's more a NASA/Einstein peripheral worry than the more central one of an impossible solution to planetary motion being upheld by academia/government in junior schools.
In rudimentary form, the real solution to planetary motion begins on the split animation below. The elongated inverting blue curves are an introductory glimpse of what six months of the earth's galactic journey looks like. Those with government resources at their disposal can develop a more accurate animation. Someone else has a less to the point (the planets should be in front of the sun half the time) but more cinematic moving sun animation on YouTube than the stop start one shown here. The fact that more resources are required for greater and also three dimensional accuracy does not compromise the fact that the reason the planets are not spiralling into the sun is the motion of the sun's inverse square law. Not Galileo's ascending perseverance vector in a fixed sun's gravity field as is currently taught in junior schools.
According to modern astronomy and relative to the centre of the galaxy, the sun travels approximately 10 times the earth - sun separation in a 1/4 year period. And, at the sun's distance from the centre of the galaxy, the path of the sun's inverse square law during an earth year is indifferent to that of a straight line. What Galileo did was confuse the path of the sun's inverse square law with the irrelevant consideration of where the earth would go to if the sun did not have an inverse square law.
Beyond Galileo's confusion, the missing link of our school book planetary motion understanding is Kepler's third law is a fact of a periodic speed differential. Meaning we are on a pendulum. A fictitious relative to a fixed sun speed of a planet is incidental of the fact that a planet's momentum is continually rising and falling as it swings across the speed of the sun.
The fact of a bi-annual earth speed differential within the sun's inverse square law is not dependent on the direction or speed of the sun's inverse square law. The top animation is current school computers. The rudimentary lower one is where classroom computers should be developing an understanding of the earth year from.
In three dimensions and as an absolute magnitude, the 60 km/sec differential over a six month period will be less. That is here nor there relative to the impossibility of fixed sun planetary motion.
The important thing is it's not the earth that is orbiting the sun, it's the earth's apparent direction of fall that is. That's the growing red circle on the lower animation. The earth itself is swinging across the speed of the sun and the earth's real direction of fall is the elongated inverting blue curves. We are on a pendulumic particle falling around a galaxy in the superior motion of a star's inverse square law, etc.....
Life is waking up. And going to sleep. And doing it again. Even if there is a life on earth important Aristotelian/Galilean/Newtonian/Einsteinian revisit ahead, the sleep part of life doesn't change. Thank goodness, to.
The personal preference would be to just deliver this or these messages to a professor. And let academic and rocket science sectors do business. Carrying the messages for thirty years has taught that they will never get through without the messenger being prepared to publicly expose himself to the planet. And admit to being one of many CBD Martians on traffic duty here on your planet. Much more information to come on that. As mind blowing as it is, at this stage best to prepare for your professors to be mocked by aliens on traffic duty.
This Martian message actually goes a little further than proclaiming the importance of teaching planetary motion through the motion of the sun. Our message says the rotations of gravity fields control the rotation periods of planets. We are trying to tell you that the 24 hours in our day is a factor of the 24 hours in your earth day. After we turn green and let another direction of traffic flow, you can have the sincere pleasure of deciding whether or not this is a mere Martian old wive's tale.
The rotation cause addition to this standard rotation rate table comes out of tidal relativity and an understanding that the sun's inverse square law is a superior motion relative to the speeds it is causing within itself.
So the neighbourly conclusions are....... 1/ Every particle in the universe has never attracted every other particle in the universe.
2/ A Copernican revolution is currently carrying a fixed sun/fixed inverse square law mistake.
3/ A Sir Isaac Newton's second law needs expanding to include weight.
4/ A Sir Isaac Newton's third law needs a classroom application to the centre of your planet.
5/ A Sir Isaac Newton's first law should read "In its direction of travel, the momentum of a moving body is uniformly conserved."
Just in case the institutionalized laziness of the earth's governmental geniuses never begins to enter sense about the tides and planetary motion, we have more......