FAMILIAR CLUES and LOGICAL ANSWERS
CENTRIPETAL FORCE and THE CAROUSAL
When a single child plays on the playground "whirl-a-gig" (or carousel), then the affect called "centrifugal force" can be readily observed. It is immediately clear that when the carousel spins rapidly that the rider must hold on tightly to avoid being thrown off because of the centrifugal force. It is also clear that the force increases in direct proportion to both the rate of rotation and the distance of the rider from the central axis of rotation. Obviously, there is no natural counter-balancing force between the spinning child and the center point of the carousal which tends to hold the child on that carousal.
The child must "hang on" to the structure of the carousal to avoid being thrown off, and that "hanging on" effort is transferred through the structure of the carousal itself to the central axis. The structure of the carousal and it’s axle must be adequately designed to prevent failure of the system.
Now if a second child jumps on the other side of the carousal from the first, the second child is affected by the same type of centrifugal force as the first child. There is no perceivable "mass attraction" tending to draw the two children toward each other. If the spin rate of the carousal remains constant, then the first child must "hang on" just as tightly to avoid being thrown off as he did before the second child jumped on the carousal.
As we observe the action of the children on the carousal, there is no question in our minds about the reality of the centrifugal forces. We have not, at this point, proven the existence or absence of a "mass attraction" between the two children. But we have no logical reason to believe that it does exist - just as there is no logical reason to believe that an attraction exists between a single rider, and the invisible axis of rotation of the carousal itself
BALANCED FORCES and THE SEE-SAW
Now lets move the two children to the playground see-saw where we find other very interesting affects
Because the rotation rate of the see-saw is less, and the radial distance between rider and axis of rotation is greater on the see-saw then on the carousal, the amount of centrifugal force is much less, and may not be noticed on the see-saw. However, that centrifugal force does exist on the riders of the see-saw, and must be overcome either through the friction of the rider-to-board, or to the rider otherwise physically "hanging on" to the board. And again, that force is transmitted as a tensile force through the length of the board to its center of rotation.
The designer’s plan for the see-saw was that two children of equal weight would sit on opposite ends of the board so that it would be balanced, and the riders would then be able to easily "jump" up and down in a manner which tended to defeat the normal gravitational effects.
The motion of the riders is obviously not vertically up and down, but rather through an arc. The radius of the arc is determined by the length of the board between each rider and the center of rotation of the board. If the riders are of equal weight, then both move through equal lengths of arc with equal velocity and in equal periods of time. The tangential and angular velocity is therefore equal for both riders
However, if the actual weight of the two riders is not equal, then the heavier rider tends to be "stuck" on the ground, while the lighter child is "stuck" at the top of the arc. To resolve this problem, the see-saw designer provided provisions to relocate the board on the pivot point. The ratio of the radial distances of the riders can be adjusted to offset the ratio of the weights of the two riders.
If one child is twice as heavy as the other, then the board is simply moved relative to the pivot point so that the length of board on the side of the lighter child is twice as long as the length of the board on the side of the heavy child. This "fix" does not change the fact that the cycle time continues to be equal for both riders. But it does result in the lighter rider moving through twice the arc length as the heavy rider, and in the tangential velocity of the lighter rider being twice that of the heavy rider.
As we consider the see-saw board, it becomes clear that the associated mathematics for balance demands the following ratios apply: W1:W2 = R2:R1 = V2:V1 and therefore W1*R1 = W2*R2. There may be great difference in man’s perception of rider weight and board length - but mathematically the ratio of one factor is simply the reciprocal of the ratio of the other factor.
The length of the arc through which the see-saw rotates is limited due to interference between board and ground. But the same concept is directly applicable to the geometry and dynamics of celestial bodies in mutual motion around a common center of rotation.
The lighter (less massive) celestial body moves through a longer radial arm at a higher tangential velocity than the partner celestial body while the two rotate around a mutual center of rotation (which must be located at the "center of gravity" of the two body "system"). The ratio of the two "mass" values is simply the reciprocal of the ratio of the two radii from the common center. Because the two share a common angular rate of rotation, it must follow that the ratio of tangential velocities is also mathematically identical to the ratio of the radii.
Comparing the action of the see-saw system to that of two celestial bodies in mutual rotation around a common center of rotation, the vertical "weight" factor is obviously non-existent. The see-saw board extending between the two celestial bodies is also obviously missing. But between that center of rotation point and each of the two celestial bodies there must exist a tensional line of force equal in mathematical value to the value of centrifugal force. That line of tension is equal and opposite on either side, and is therefore neutralized, at the center of rotation.
THE MYTH OF "MASS ATTRACTION"
Finally, let us compare what should be obvious from the above discussion with the concepts of centripetal force and mass attraction which Newton postulated.
Newton imagined the existence of a centripetal (not centrifugal) force. He advised that the value of centripetal force was "mass" times centripetal acceleration. When we analyzed the playground toys, we demonstrated that a centrifugal force (not centripetal) exists on the children as the result of rotational motion. We also demonstrated that a line of linear tensional force must exist between the child and the axis of rotation.
Newton imagined that an omni-directional gravitational force field emanates from all physical bodies (or masses). We did not disprove such a concept, but we also found no reason to postulate such a force field between the two children.
Newton imagined that two physical objects are attracted directly toward each other in proportion to the product of their mass divided by the square of the total distance between the two. His imagined force is independent of any relative velocity between the two.
We found no evidence of the above. We did find that IF two objects (children) are in mutual rotation around a common center point then each must "hang on" to something to avoid being thrown outward due to centrifugal force. We also found that, if the system is "balanced", then the centrifugal force must be equal on both children. As a result, a line of tensile force existed between each of the two and the common center of rotation. The net at that mutual center of rotation was therefore neutralized to a zero net affect. We also found that the forces were totally dependent on the existence of motion, and that the mathematical value of those forces were proportional to the rate of mutual rotation relative to the common center, and to the radius of rotation.
It is time for science to recognize that the concept of "mass attraction" has absolutely no relationship to the existence of the "mass" of any one single physical object. The entire concept is meaningless unless some motion exists. If such relative motion does exist, the mathematical value of any apparent "mass attraction" between the two relative bodies is nothing more or less than a ratio, and that ratio is nothing more than the reciprocal value of either the velocity or the radii of those two bodies relative to a common center of motion.
In essence, that factor which science has named "mass" is nothing more than a natural resistance to a perceived "force" on a partner object. And similarly, that factor which science has named "force" is nothing other than the result of the application of some perceived value of "mass" which has been assigned to the partner object. Neither "force" nor "mass" can exist as a perceivable reality without the other.
Mass attraction is a myth. A myth which has been promulgated without question by the scientific "establishment" since the concept was first postulated by Newton during the 16th century. Sadly, the myth forms the foundation upon which most of the subsequent centuries of scientific endeavors have been, and continue to be constructed.
WHAT’S NEXT
Once we have broken the chains binding our current thoughts to the historical myths, great vistas of awareness become possible. Two of those chains are the primary teachings in science that each of the four recognized "dimensions" are independent factors of nature, and that every mathematical equation must therefore comply with a principle called "dimensional analysis". At this point we have found strong reason to doubt that there is any logical connection between imaginary mathematics and the reality of what man actually perceives. We have reason to believe that the factors science has labeled as "dimensions" may be little more than mathematical mirrors of one basic state of relative reality.
We will move now into some areas where it is possible to tie many different scientific observations together into a common state of relativity.
