justlookingin

A prompt, but not terribly informative response. Which words did you find particular difficulty with? I like the username. It has been my regretted privilege to have been a "rocket scientist". [i see that you may have pre-empted a clarificatory edit: (They do not pull each other, they are "pushed" together by the slight variation in the net propulsive force to the "weather" side of the vessel)). Perhaps that helps.] PS. While Feynman may have been a wonderful teacher of the physics of his time, neither etymology nor ornithology were among his great achievments. The name of anything, in any language, should tell you something about the entity, and the more languages that you use, the broader the picture that you will develop. Granted, the words may tell you more about the people that name the bird than the bird itself, but nevertheless a certain amount of information regarding observed characteristics and behaviours is likely to be communicated.

In low friction or frictionless systems it is easy to see an alternative to the standard attractive model of gravity that negates neither Newton's nor Einstein's observations and may prove fruitful in reassessing problems of micro gravitational anomalies and sub atomic behaviour. We see in such systems a propulsive rather than an attractive model. For a crude macro example, two ships will tend to drift together in open water, not because of the attraction of their general mass, but because in the general maelstrom of forces, a lull develops in the lee of the vessels, (the interstice between the vessels), that effectively constitutes a "downslope" attraction - so they drift together. (They do not pull each other, they are "pushed" together by the slight variation in the net propulsive force to the "weather" side of the vessel). The same is, of course, observable in satellites. Both Newton and Einstein effectively describe and model the behaviours of material, without necessarily understanding the underlying principles. We are obliged therefore to take the forces that have no rational explanation as axiomatic. In reality there are very few axioms. Radiation is well defined and perceived experimentally. Attractive forces are accurately observed but are not convincingly demonstrated, and do not seem well understood. You should perhaps spend more time reassessing your axioms than developing ever more ludicrous Ptolemaic epicycles. Unfortunately the conception of "attractive" forces (the only truly attractive forces are vacuum based, as in EM systems) is so deeply entrenched in highschool physics that it is unlikely that a net propulsive force will be seriously considered by the current generation.