[rmolnav]

If you are applying the centripetal force from the CG of the other body rather than the barycentre, then the centrifugal force must be zero.

Do you remember "Blowing in the wind"? ... "How many times" ... must I tell you the same ??
I´m not applying any force: centripetal force, in our case, is the FUNCTION of an existing component of moon´s pull, the one perpendicular to the trajectory, as shown on:
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/gravity/answers/images/ch14_rev7.gif
If YOU are uncapable of understanding that image and reply:

When I ask you where you're applying the centripetal force from, I'm asking for the big arrow and not either of the two component ones (which are artificial components used in the maths and not in the underlying physics)

it is YOU the one who has got a really serious problem !!

any competent scientist would agree with me that the material cannot change separation without a difference in acceleration - if the acceleration is identical for all the particles, the separations are fixed and material cannot lift at all. I'm discussing a tiny difference, but it has to be there.

Again: you are erroneously dealing with two different phenomena:
1) One, within the Dynamics realm, is acceleration of a particle, equal to F/m (being F the total force exerted on the particle by other material stuff, and m the mass of the particle).
2) On solid earth, what you call "separation" is just a kind of accumulation of deformations of stuff within the considered space.
Those deformations have nothing to do with respective values of m (basic for "accelerations") but with the elastic features of that material stuff !!
Even the basic sciences dealing with that are different: Elasticity and Resistance of Materials (not quite sure that is the correct English name).

I was referring to material (e.g. water) lifting a tiny amount at the surface due to the reduced pressure.

There we are ... almost. Pressure, paramount in the realm of Hydrostatic (though also affecting Hydrodynamics), due to both direct gravity pull there and inertial forces, decreases towards where the bulges build up. And due to:
1) Hydrostatic laws ...
2) ... and also to tangential components of total acting forces on each location (mainly intermediate areas, app. between some 75º and 15º away from the "center" of each bulge),
water from each hemisphere moves towards, and piles up on, the sublunar and antipodal areas.
Very little to do, if any, with the "accelerations" you refer to...

[David Cooper]

Do you remember "Blowing in the wind"? ... "How many times" ... must I tell you the same ??
I´m not applying any force: centripetal force, in our case, is the FUNCTION of an existing component of moon´s pull, the one perpendicular to the trajectory, as shown on:
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/gravity/answers/images/ch14_rev7.gif

You've told me that you have centripetal and centrifugal force balancing each other at the CG of the moon (or Earth if we're working in the other direction), and you have the centrifugal force calculated from the barycentre. I've asked you where you want the centripetal force to be applied from, and you won't say. Indeed, now you say you aren't applying any force, in which case how can it be balancing the centrifugal force, and how can you be applying a centrifugal force either? Are they both zero? This is getting more and more bonkers by the day. And back we go to the diagram with the centripetal force split into two vectors - if you want to apply them separately in that way, that's fine, but it still involves centripetal force being applied from somewhere and I want you to spell out where that is? Is that really too much to ask? Even a troll should be able to give a straight answer to a simple question like that. What is the difficulty?

If YOU are uncapable of understanding that image and reply:

When I ask you where you're applying the centripetal force from, I'm asking for the big arrow and not either of the two component ones (which are artificial components used in the maths and not in the underlying physics)

it is YOU the one who has got a really serious problem !!

The serious problem is your extreme reluctance to spell out your mechanism.

Again: you are erroneously dealing with two different phenomena:
1) One, within the Dynamics realm, is acceleration of a particle, equal to F/m (being F the total force exerted on the particle by other material stuff, and m the mass of the particle).
2) On solid earth, what you call "separation" is just a kind of accumulation of deformations of stuff within the considered space.
Those deformations have nothing to do with respective values of m (basic for "accelerations") but with the elastic features of that material stuff !!

If two particles move further apart, then move closer together, then move further apart, etc, that is only possible with changing speed differences, and those necessarily involve different accelerations. It is futile to deny it - no amount of your bloated junk can overturn the physics.

Very little to do, if any, with the "accelerations" you refer to..

There is a difference in acceleration and that's all there is to that point - you are wrong in attacking it. The importance of that acceleration difference is equal to the importance of the difference in force being applied there and the importance of the pressure difference - if you insist on any one of them being zero, all the others will have to be zero to match.

How much more of this pantomime is going to go on before you spell out where your centripetal force is to be applied from so that we can write the simulation that you don't want to be written?

[rmolnav]

Computer simulation is not my forte, though idecades ago I worked for a cutting edge international society, in their department of Machinery Research. I remember a team of not less than half a dozen of us (some specialists on different areas) investigated among other things the torsional vibrations of the huge and complex reduction gear to be installed in a crude oil supertanker between turbines (working at really high r.p.m.), and the propeller (working at rather low r.p.m.).
We used Finite Element Method, as a reasonable approach to the real thing (choosing "sufficiently" small elements at each area), which is that all the mechanical variables to be considered are actually continuous functions, that they don´t change leaping ...
I know earth and moon trajectories can be simulated in a similar way. But, apart from knowing computer programing, it is necessary to grasp thoroughly the real Physics of the phenomenon, what you alone clearly doesn´t, at least as far as centripetal force concept is concerned, let alone inertia and centrifugal force concepts !!
You can be getting a correct trajectory with your simulation, but to do something similar with what you call "my mechanism" (including somehow an analysis of inertial effects) is not possible, at least the way I think you want to do it, because you time and again ask me:

How much more of this pantomime is going to go on before you spell out where your centripetal force is to be applied from so that we can write the simulation that you don't want to be written?

By the way, directly in relation to that, I already asked you:

When you say "... whether you're using centrifugal force or not", what exactly do you suppose I should "use" centrifugal force for (obviously, keeping in mind I consider centrifugal force does exist) ?

and you replied:

The whole point is that it doesn't exist, but you're treating it as a force, and as soon as you do that, you have to fiddle the opposing force to cancel it out. If you are applying the centripetal force from the CG of the other body rather than the barycentre, then the centrifugal force must be zero.

what doesn´t actually answer my clear question, but shows you keep mixing up things ...
Again, I´ve never talked about the place I apply centripetal force in a simulation: I always referred to the real scenario, and the two different real effects of the two orthogonal components of moon´s pull at each point of the real orbit, one tangential and the other perpendicular to the orbit.
By the way, those components are "underlying Physics" (one bends the trajectory, and the other increases or decreases earth linear velocity), not just "artificial" maths stuff as you said:

Quote
In any case, please have a look at least to the images on:
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/gravity/answers/images/ch14_rev7.gif
That gravitational pull vector break down into two components orthogonal to each other is an absurd thing only to you ...
You don't even realise that I apply that in my simulation. When I ask you where you're applying the centripetal force from, I'm asking for the big arrow and not either of the two component ones (which are artificial components used in the maths and not in the underlying physics).

Again, I´m afraid it is too much stuff for you to hold, at least with your flawed Physics deeply rooted foundations, especially as far as centripetal forces are concerned ...

[David Cooper]

I know earth and moon trajectories can be simulated in a similar way. But, apart from knowing computer programing, it is necessary to grasp thoroughly the real Physics of the phenomenon, what you alone clearly doesn´t, at least as far as centripetal force concept is concerned, let alone inertia and centrifugal force concepts !!

But you presumably do understand your mechanism, so what's the big difficulty? Can't we work together to build a simulation of it? It shouldn't need me to understand it for you - I can simply program it to apply forces in the exact way that you ask them to be applied.

You can be getting a correct trajectory with your simulation, but to do something similar with what you call "my mechanism" (including somehow an analysis of inertial effects) is not possible, at least the way I think you want to do it, because you time and again ask me:

How much more of this pantomime is going to go on before you spell out where your centripetal force is to be applied from so that we can write the simulation that you don't want to be written?

If you have centripetal force in your mechanism, it must be possible to apply it in a simulation.

By the way, directly in relation to that, I already asked you:

When you say "... whether you're using centrifugal force or not", what exactly do you suppose I should "use" centrifugal force for (obviously, keeping in mind I consider centrifugal force does exist) ?

and you replied:

The whole point is that it doesn't exist, but you're treating it as a force, and as soon as you do that, you have to fiddle the opposing force to cancel it out. If you are applying the centripetal force from the CG of the other body rather than the barycentre, then the centrifugal force must be zero.

what doesn´t actually answer my clear question, but shows you keep mixing up things ...

If you have centrifugal force in your mechanism, it must be possible to apply it in a simulation too. I don't care what you want to "use" it for - if you are claiming it as part of the mechanism, it has to serve a rational role in that mechanism and actually be possible to apply to something.

Again, I´ve never talked about the place I apply centripetal force in a simulation: I always referred to the real scenario, and the two different real effects of the two orthogonal components of moon´s pull at each point of the real orbit, one tangential and the other perpendicular to the orbit.

What you're doing then is splitting the centripetal force into two vectors, but you still have a location from which that centripetal force is being applied - you're merely trying to hide that by having two imaginary components of the pull work independently from two alternative locations. Clearly a simulation can do that if you want it to, but the underlying reality is a single pull from a single direction (which does not come from the barycentre either, but will presumably appear to do so in a simulation of your mechanism).

By the way, those components are "underlying Physics" (one bends the trajectory, and the other increases or decreases earth linear velocity),

No - it's an abstraction of the underlying physics (in which there is only one pull from one single direction).

... not just "artificial" maths stuff as you said:

Quote
In any case, please have a look at least to the images on:
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/gravity/answers/images/ch14_rev7.gif
That gravitational pull vector break down into two components orthogonal to each other is an absurd thing only to you ...
You don't even realise that I apply that in my simulation. When I ask you where you're applying the centripetal force from, I'm asking for the big arrow and not either of the two component ones (which are artificial components used in the maths and not in the underlying physics).

Again, I´m afraid it is too much stuff for you to hold, at least with your flawed Physics deeply rooted foundations, especially as far as centripetal forces are concerned ...

The problem is at your end; not mine. There is one pull from one direction and you are dividing it into two components in an artificial way - all ways of dividing it into two components are artificial and misrepresent the underlying physics. However, if your mechanism is to be simulated, it will clearly be doing a lot of artificial things as it's a mathematical abstraction rather than real physics.

The situation appears to be this. The centripetal force in your model comes from the barycentre, but you want to hide that by having it come in two components with one in line with the direction of movement of the body in question and the other perpendicular to that. That's fine - we can split it in that manner if you like, but I will still show the big arrow to make it clear that it links to the barycentre. Note too that you still need to calculate the centripetal force rather than just the two components because you want to show that it has the same value as the centrifugal force.

Do you want to play the same game with the centrifugal force? Do we use the formula that applies it from the barycentre, or should it too be split into two components with one acting in line with the direction of travel of the body and the other perpendicular to it? I don't mind which you want to do - we can do both if we disagree on which is better.

In both cases, we must start with the total force before we can work out the two components of each. The centrifugal one uses the angular speed round the barycentre and the distance of the body from the barycentre. The centripetal force relates the mass of the body to the distance, presumably between the barycentre and the body. If the two are equal, the body would move in a straight line, but we're dealing with weird rotating frame stuff, so my guess is that we have to calculate its movement along the line from the barycentre first, then apply a rotation to move it perpendicular (initially) to that. That would work fine for a circular orbit, but with an elliptical one it will run into problems. If the centripetal and centrifugal forces are always equal for the body's CM, then if it's already moving outwards, it will continue to move outwards, generating a spiral path rather than an elliptical orbit unless there's some other trick that comes into play to retain the directionality of that movement to rotate it for the new position of the body as the rotation round the barycentre is applied. I was hoping you'd have revealed all the details of this long ago, but for some inexplicable reason I'm still having to push you for them now. There may be further complications if you insist on splitting the forces into two components and working with those instead - I hate to think how complex the rotations become if you do that (because you're then applying forces out of line with the centre of rotation), but if there is a method for handling all that, I look forward to seeing it.

[rmolnav]

What you're doing then is splitting the centripetal force into two vectors

Again: you haven´t grasped what centripetal force is yet !
What is actually "split" (by nature, not by me) into two quite different effects (to bend the trajectory, and to increase or decrease earth linear speed) is the total moon´s pull vector effect, obviously originated where the moon is in each instant.
A rational analysis of those effects splits that pull vector into two orthogonal components, each one causing one of the "physically" quite different mentioned effects.
Only the component perpendicular to the orbit exerts the function of  centripetal force, as shown on:
https://opentextbc.ca/physicstestbook2/chapter/centripetal-force/
"Any force or combination of forces can cause a centripetal or radial acceleration. Just a few examples are the tension in the rope on a tether ball, the force of Earth’s gravity on the Moon, friction between roller skates and a rink floor, a banked roadway’s force on a car, and forces on the tube of a spinning centrifuge.
... The direction of a centripetal force is toward the center of curvature, the same as the direction of centripetal acceleration. According to Newton’s second law of motion, net force is mass times acceleration: ...
By using the expressions for centripetal acceleration ... we get two expressions for the centripetal force  in terms of mass, velocity, angular velocity, and radius of curvature:
CF=mrω² and CF=mv²/r
You may use whichever expression for centripetal force is more convenient. Centripetal force  is always perpendicular to the path and pointing to the center of curvature, because  is perpendicular to the velocity and pointing to the center of curvature.
Note that if you solve the first expression for r, you get:
r=mr²/CF
This implies that for a given mass and velocity, a large centripetal force causes a small radius of curvature—that is, a tight curve".
IF YOU WANT to make a simulation the way you usually do, apart from the place to "apply" (for the simulation ...) the centripetal force from, you would need the place to "apply" the other component from ... Being that component tangential to the the orbit (by the way, an OUTPUT of the intended simulation), there is no way to know a priory the direction of those components !!
I can´t understand how you can have even imagined I (or you, or both) could make such type of simulation, asking me time and again information to carry on with that impossible "endeavor" ...
Basic Logics: Causes and effects should never be mixed up !!
 

[rmolnav]

Note that if you solve the first expression for r, you get:
r=mr²/CF

Sorry ... That´s obviously a lapse !! It shold be:
r=mv²/CF

[David Cooper]

What you're doing then is splitting the centripetal force into two vectors

Again: you haven´t grasped what centripetal force is yet !

Well, it becomes really weird stuff when dealing with elliptical orbits, because it isn't the actual gravitational pull, but an imaginary part of it acting in a different direction. I wasn't expecting that, but it only goes to illustrate again that we're dealing here with a mere abstraction rather than the real underlying physics - understanding the actual physics is a disadvantage as it conflicts so badly with the abstraction (which you mistake for real physics). You have established then that the centripetal force is just the component of that pull that's perpendicular to the direction of travel of the body, so it doesn't come from the direction of the body that's doing the pulling, and it doesn't even come from the barycentre. There should be no problem with simulating that though.

A rational analysis of those effects splits that pull vector into two orthogonal components, each one causing one of the "physically" quite different mentioned effects.

A rational analysis doesn't split the pull into two parts - it simply applies a direct acceleration to the body in the direction of the pull.

By using the expressions for centripetal acceleration ... we get two expressions for the centripetal force  in terms of mass, velocity, angular velocity, and radius of curvature:
CF=mrω² and CF=mv²/r
You may use whichever expression for centripetal force is more convenient. Centripetal force  is always perpendicular to the path and pointing to the center of curvature, because  is perpendicular to the velocity and pointing to the center of curvature.

Great - I'll be able to apply one or other of those if you spell out where the source of the pull is so that I can split it into the two components. Is the source of the pull the CM of the body or the barycentre? This is the question I've been asking you over and over again (while apparently using the wrong wording by mistaking it for the centripetal force, but you ought to have recognised what I was asking regardless).

IF YOU WANT to make a simulation the way you usually do, apart from the place to "apply" (for the simulation ...) the centripetal force from, you would need the place to "apply" the other component from ... Being that component tangential to the the orbit (by the way, an OUTPUT of the intended simulation), there is no way to know a priory the direction of those components !!

Where's the difficulty? The simulation stores vectors for the movement of each body, and those provide us with everything we need to know to work out the directions to apply your two components of the force. Once they have both been applied, the result will be exactly the same as if we had just applied a single acceleration in the direction of the source of the pull, which means splitting it into two components is a superfluous exercise other than to generate numbers for the artificially-split forces which we can display on the screen while the simulation runs.

I can´t understand how you can have even imagined I (or you, or both) could make such type of simulation, asking me time and again information to carry on with that impossible "endeavor" ...
Basic Logics: Causes and effects should never be mixed up !!

If you have a model that's in any way viable (even if it's an abstraction), it should be possible to simulate it. (And we simply program in the causes, whether they're the real ones or abstractions of them, allowing the effects to be generated from them by running the simulation.) You must be aware that your two components of the force can be combined to produce the actual gravitational pull in the direction of the body that's generating the pull, and that this will necessarily emanate from somewhere - the only question is whether that point is the CM of the body or the barycentre. You ought to be able to tell me which one of those options it is.

Another question you still haven't cleared up is whether you're applying the centrifugal force from the barycentre or the same point as the centripetal force. I'm guessing now that it's the latter, but we finally seem to be getting close to the point where this simulation can be written.

[rmolnav]

it only goes to illustrate again that we're dealing here with a mere abstraction rather than the real underlying physics - understanding the actual physics is a disadvantage as it conflicts so badly with the abstraction (which you mistake for real physics). You have established then that the centripetal force is just the component of that pull that's perpendicular to the direction of travel of the body, so it doesn't come from the direction of the body that's doing the pulling, and it doesn't even come from the barycentre. There should be no problem with simulating that though.

How many times must I tell you the same ...? (Blowing in the wind)
1) Do you call "a mere abstraction rather than the real underlying physics" the rational analysis of TWO QUITE DIFFERENT effects of moon´s pull on earth´s REAL movement ??
With more reasons I could say your computer programs, apparently the "center" of the world to you, are "mere simulations rather than real physics" !!
2) It´s NOT ME who has "established then that the centripetal force is just the component of that pull that's perpendicular to the direction of travel of the body" ... That is actually its sheer DEFINITION in several science branches called Astronomy, Dynamics, Mechanics, Physics ... , and it is THE ONLY part of moon´s pull which can affect earth´s trajectory shape.
If you consider those sciences should be rewritten, you´d better contact some Academy of Sciences and suggest it.
3) If you are INCAPABLE of understanding that, though the total pull vector has obviously to be in the direction of the moon, its orthogonal components can be in directions different from "... the direction of the body that's doing the pulling, and it doesn't even come from the barycentre"... THE PROBLEM IS YOURS (one more).
4) You also say: "There should be no problem with simulating that though".
If for YOUR simulation, presumably to get earth´s trajectory, you need as an INPUT the directions of centripetal forces, that simulation is not fit for purpose ...
You can get the trajectory with (apart from masses, distances and initial linear speeds) the total pull according to general gravitational law.
And then you would have earth´s trajectory shape, and therefore the directions of centers of curvature at each location, where centripetal forces come from (BY DEFINITION)
But you can´t make a simulation to get earth´s trajectory if the directions of centripetal forces are required as an INPUT !!
And don´t forget you would also need a priori the directions of the other component of moon´s pull, tangential to the trajectory at each location !!
Once more you are mixing up causes and consequences !!

[David Cooper]

How many times must I tell you the same ...? (Blowing in the wind)
1) Do you call "a mere abstraction rather than the real underlying physics" the rational analysis of TWO QUITE DIFFERENT effects of moon´s pull on earth´s REAL movement ??
With more reasons I could say your computer programs, apparently the "center" of the world to you, are "mere simulations rather than real physics" !!

You're clearly a magical thinker who imagines that abstractions are more real than the reality they attempt to represent. There is a single acceleration applied to the body which changes its speed in that direction while leaving its speed perpendicular to that unaffected.

2) It´s NOT ME who has "established then that the centripetal force is just the component of that pull that's perpendicular to the direction of travel of the body" ... That is actually its sheer DEFINITION in several science branches called Astronomy, Dynamics, Mechanics, Physics ... , and it is THE ONLY part of moon´s pull which can affect earth´s trajectory shape.

It is, nonetheless, a mere abstraction - it should not be mistaken for the actual physics.

If you consider those sciences should be rewritten, you´d better contact some Academy of Sciences and suggest it.

There is no need - most scientists recognise that it is a mere abstraction.

3) If you are INCAPABLE of understanding that, though the total pull vector has obviously to be in the direction of the moon, its orthogonal components can be in directions different from "... the direction of the body that's doing the pulling, and it doesn't even come from the barycentre"... THE PROBLEM IS YOURS (one more).

The orthogonal components are non-existent - a mere fabrication of the abstraction. And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question as to whether it applies from the body or the barycentre, but I can only assume that you can't answer that because you don't know the answer.

By the way, the diagram you keep linking to (http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/gravity/answers/images/ch14_rev7.gif) showing two forces being applied at 90 degrees to each other to a planet at a point where its turn is least tight on an elliptical orbit doesn't show the centripetal force applying from the centre of curvature of the line at that point - the centre of curvature would be off the top of the screen, so it doesn't match up to where the centripetal force component is shown to be coming from in the diagram. This again leads me to think that you're making up a method as you go along, and you know it won't work so you don't want to provide enough of it to reveal that.

4) You also say: "There should be no problem with simulating that though".
If for YOUR simulation, presumably to get earth´s trajectory, you need as an INPUT the directions of centripetal forces, that simulation is not fit for purpose ...

In my simulation, I don't have to care about centripetal force - I just represent the gravitational pull and it all works fine. In your simulation though, if you imagine that centripetal force is part of the mechanism, you need to apply it in the simulation.

You can get the trajectory with (apart from masses, distances and initial linear speeds) the total pull according to general gravitational law.
And then you would have earth´s trajectory shape, and therefore the directions of centers of curvature at each location, where centripetal forces come from (BY DEFINITION)

Ah, I get it. You want to use my mechanism to run your simulation, then calculate some bogus forces and attribute all the action to them instead while calling that fake action the real physics.

But you can´t make a simulation to get earth´s trajectory if the directions of centripetal forces are required as an INPUT !!

Which means you're effectively admitting that your mechanism is deficient and that the real universe can't work that way.

And don´t forget you would also need a priori the directions of the other component of moon´s pull, tangential to the trajectory at each location !!
Once more you are mixing up causes and consequences !!

I'm not mixing that up at all - you are. If your mechanism has the Earth's direct gravitational pull causing the moon to follow its orbit rather than your imaginary components doing the job, your imaginary components are not doing the job.

You also failed to answer the question about the place to apply the the centrifugal force from. If it's the barycentre, it's at the wrong angle for the centripetal force, but if it's done from the same point as the centripetal force (the centre of curvature), then it's at the wrong angle for where the tidal forces are maximised. That's more evidence that you're just making things up as you go along.

[rmolnav]

A) Sorry, but you continue kind of LYING ...
Only on your last post not less than FOUR times you mention either the expression "your simulation" or "your mechanism", trying to DECEIVE other people, making them think that is something "mine" ...
Because that stuff  exists ONLY IN YOUR MIND !! Many times I´ve said what I do is just a RATIONAL ANALYSIS of facts, that it is YOU who has imagined what time and again you refer to. I even said:

IF YOU WANT to make a simulation the way you usually do, apart from the place to "apply" (for the simulation ...) the centripetal force from, you would need the place to "apply" the other component from ... Being that component tangential to the the orbit (by the way, an OUTPUT of the intended simulation), there is no way to know a priory the direction of those components !!
I can´t understand how you can have even imagined I (or you, or both) could make such type of simulation, asking me time and again information to carry on with that impossible "endeavor" ...
Basic Logics: Causes and effects should never be mixed up !!
 

B)

You're clearly a magical thinker who imagines that abstractions are more real than the reality they attempt to represent

Come on !! ALL CONCEPTS we use when referring to physical "reality" have necessarily to be “abstractions”.
Definition of concept in English (Oxford dictionary).:
NOUN
1 An abstract idea.
"Real" physical stuff, without our "abstractions", could not be either "analyzed" or "simulated" in any way !! We don´t follow the quote "Lesser fair, lesser passer"  (nature reality), and things logically don´t change: "...le monde va de lui même" (sorry if any French error).
But, why your abstractions may be valid, but mines not ??
C)

There is a single acceleration applied to the body which changes its speed in that direction while leaving its speed perpendicular to that unaffected.

O.K. But what are the real physical EFFECTS of that acceleration?
Does the body speed increase in size?? Does it change in direction ??
It depends NOT ONLY on what you refer to (direction of total acceleration, and its "unaffected" perpendicular), but ALSO on the direction of the already existing object speed vector ...
And it is NATURE "who" actually splits that total acceleration into two componentes:
1) In a unit of time the object speed changes in size ONLY the component of total acceleration in the direction of the existing speed vector ...
2) And the component of mentioned total acceleration perpendicular to that speed vector, cannot change the size of that speed (by the way, due to INERTIAL effects): it ONLY changes continuously its direction. And that acceleration vector component does exert the function of "centripetal force" (per unit of mass), what actually "forces" the trajectory to turn more or less ...
D)

You also failed to answer the question about the place to apply the the centrifugal force from

Sorry ... I didn´t keep in mind that as you haven´t grasp the concept of centripetal force yet, let alone could you have grasped the concept of centrifugal force ...
Again: centrifugal force vector, as an inertial effect inherent in any curved movement, is always equal but opposite to centripetal force, whatever the agent which causes the later ...

[rmolnav]

Definition of concept in English (Oxford dictionary).:
NOUN
1 An abstract idea.

Perhaps it is better the definition I´d previously seen on my Advanced Learners´s Oxford Dictionary (7th Edition):
"An idea or a principle connected with something abstract"
And, again, not even in my wildest dreams could I have imagined I would have to explain, time and again, all that stuff (basic concepts from the realms of Physics, Maths, and even sheer Language) on a blog such as this one, supposedly for educated adults who learnt them when teenagers !!

[David Cooper]

A) Sorry, but you continue kind of LYING ...
Only on your last post not less than FOUR times you mention either the expression "your simulation" or "your mechanism", trying to DECEIVE other people, making them think that is something "mine" ...

You are pushing an incorrect mechanism and denying that a correct mechanism is correct. That makes the former mechanism yours and the latter (my one) not yours. It's your job either to defend your mechanism and to show that it works (by helping build a simulation of it) or disown it and agree that it's wrong.

Because that stuff  exists ONLY IN YOUR MIND !! Many times I´ve said what I do is just a RATIONAL ANALYSIS of facts, that it is YOU who has imagined what time and again you refer to.

Your analysis is irrational - you are ignoring the real causes and asserting that other things are causes even though they are mere abstractions.

I even said:

...

B)

You're clearly a magical thinker who imagines that abstractions are more real than the reality they attempt to represent

Come on !! ALL CONCEPTS we use when referring to physical "reality" have necessarily to be “abstractions”.

This reveals that you have no real understanding of physics at all - you think everything's an abstraction, but there are actually real causes which drive events, and those real causes can be simulated.

Definition of concept in English (Oxford dictionary).:
NOUN
1 An abstract idea.
"Real" physical stuff, without our "abstractions", could not be either "analyzed" or "simulated" in any way !! We don´t follow the quote "Lesser fair, lesser passer"  (nature reality), and things logically don´t change: "...le monde va de lui même" (sorry if any French error).

Quoting something from a lexicographer does not turn reality into abstract. There is a reality in which actual events happen, driven by actual causes. We analyse those events and have concepts which map to them. Some of those concepts are composite, mapping to composite objects and composite actions. Other concepts are fundamental, mapping to fundamental realities. Just as composite objects and actions can be broken down into the fundamental components from which they're made, so can composite concepts. If you design your system of concepts properly, everything maps correctly to reality. Some systems for analysing things involve creating concepts mapping to fake phenomena, such as centrifugal force - they are abstractions. That doesn't make all other concepts abstractions - you have made an irrational assumption and it has disabled your ability to think properly. This is a really useful insight into how human thinking can go wrong - I've never encountered a case of this specific defect before, or at least, I've never got to the root of the cause of it before in anyone that I've previously studied. Your involvement in this thread has now paid off - you have contributed something really useful to science.

But, why your abstractions may be valid, but mines not ??

Because mine aren't abstractions - that's the whole point. The actual force is simply gravity. Of course, we don't yet know for certain how gravity works, so it could still be an abstraction to think of it as a force, but it's closer to the truth than an imagined mechanism where that force is artificially divided into different components and where even if they're combined together they still apply from the wrong place (the barycentre instead of the CG of the body that generates the gravity).

C)

There is a single acceleration applied to the body which changes its speed in that direction while leaving its speed perpendicular to that unaffected.

O.K. But what are the real physical EFFECTS of that acceleration?
Does the body speed increase in size?? Does it change in direction ??

It changes its speed along the line in which the gravity is acting, but it doesn't change its speed perpendicular to that line. The direction it follows as a result of this is driven solely by that change of speed along that line.

It depends NOT ONLY on what you refer to (direction of total acceleration, and its "unaffected" perpendicular), but ALSO on the direction of the already existing object speed vector ...
And it is NATURE "who" actually splits that total acceleration into two componentes:

The change in direction is entirely down to the acceleration along the line to the other body - change frame of reference and the behaviour can be made to look identical regardless of the initial speed and direction of travel - the application of the acceleration has an identical result in every case (for a given strength of acceleration force). Nature does not split the acceleration into two components with one pulling it sideways and the other adjusting its forward speed - that is where you're producing an abstraction of the simpler underlying reality, turning one real force into two fake ones.

And that acceleration vector component does exert the function of "centripetal force" (per unit of mass), what actually "forces" the trajectory to turn more or less ...

That's just part of the contrived abstraction. It is not part of the real mechanism. A simulation of the real mechanism should simply apply the single real force, and doing this automatically produces a result that matches up to reality.

D)

You also failed to answer the question about the place to apply the the centrifugal force from

Sorry ... I didn´t keep in mind that as you haven´t grasp the concept of centripetal force yet, let alone could you have grasped the concept of centrifugal force ...
Again: centrifugal force vector, as an inertial effect inherent in any curved movement, is always equal but opposite to centripetal force, whatever the agent which causes the later ...

Thanks for clearing that up. It confirms that your centripetal force doesn't line up correctly with the tidal forces throughout most of an elliptical orbit, so your bulges would appear in the wrong place. How do you cure that? You have to look at the other artificial component of the acceleration force and factor that in, but you can't call that centripetal force or the effect centrifugal force because it's accelerating the body along its line of travel, so what do you call them? How about Bert and Alice? Naturally enough though, when you combine these two abstractions together and just count it as a single acceleration from the direction of the other body, you then have actual force correctly aligned (the centripetal plus Bert force), and the imaginary force (centrifugal plus Alice) is also correctly aligned, so that's much closer to the underlying reality. It still isn't right though, because in the underlying reality, the centrifugal-plus-Alice force is zero, and the real gravitational force comes from the body rather than the barycentre.

Definition of concept in English (Oxford dictionary).:
NOUN
1 An abstract idea.

Perhaps it is better the definition I´d previously seen on my Advanced Learners´s Oxford Dictionary (7th Edition):
"An idea or a principle connected with something abstract"
And, again, not even in my wildest dreams could I have imagined I would have to explain, time and again, all that stuff (basic concepts from the realms of Physics, Maths, and even sheer Language) on a blog such as this one, supposedly for educated adults who learnt them when teenagers !!

Like I said before; some concepts map to reality (either fundamentals of composites), while other concepts map to imaginary things. A concept that maps to something imaginary is an abstraction. A concept that maps to something real is not an abstraction. When you're dealing with dictionary definitions, you're exposing yourself to a lot of errors which come from lexicographers. I've spent years building a dictionary for AGI systems where everything is correctly mapped and defined, throwing out all the error-ridden junk that comes from people who are not great philosophers or logicians and who make mistakes in their definitions. You can't build AGI on their faulty definitions because they don't transform correctly. Your problem is that you are worshipping faulty dictionaries and allowing them to shackle your thinking. In AGI development, we have to throw out the crud and start from scratch, working out what every little nut and bolt of language actually does rather than trusting in the errors of a chain of non-experts who have done a good job with lexicography in terms of understanding the origins of words and gradually improving their definitions though a process similar to evolution, but who have still not managed to get vast chunks of their analysis right (because that isn't their top priority - they are designing definitions for humans rather than for AGI and they leave a lot to the reader to debug the definitions for themselves if they need to). Often with dictionaries, definitions are circular. With a dictionary for AGI, that isn't allowed - everything has to break down towards more fundamental components (unless it is at the fundamental component level already).

Time and time again, you try to correct me when I'm right, and you're actually trying to make me abandon what's right in favour of things that are wrong, all on the justification of rules and definitions made up by fallible people whom you consider to be infallible. Your idea of an educated adult is someone who filled their head with authoritative data as teenagers and who trust that data unthinkingly for the rest of their lives. That is not my idea of what an educated adult should be. An educated adult is one who knows a lot, but who also knows that they should not trust what they've been taught and that they need to question it repeatedly, testing it to see if it breaks. You appear to have failed to learn to do that most important thing. Rubbish in --> rubbish out. You are a rubbish-regurgitator. Look at what you've done here: you have accommodated an error in dictionaries (assuming that they don't offer alternative definitions that tell you they aren't all abstractions - maybe they do and you've just hidden that information because it doesn't suit your argument, but I'll assume you aren't being that dishonest) and applied it without stopping to question its validity. An authoritative source tells you that concepts are abstractions, so you take that to mean that everything is an abstraction and that none of these abstractions can therefore map to reality better than any others. And yet even there you mess things up, because you're asserting superiority of your abstraction (which is indeed an abstraction) over my mechanism (which you mistake for an abstraction, but which actually maps correctly to the underlying reality). Why would you do that instead of counting them as equally valid?

[rmolnav]

Your analysis is irrational - you are ignoring the real causes and asserting that other things are causes even though they are mere abstractions.

You keep kind of LYING, because I´ve never said anything even just suggesting I either ignore moon´s pull is the real CAUSE, or assert other "mere abstractions" are causes whatsoever !!

Many times I´ve said what I do is just a RATIONAL ANALYSIS of facts,

And EFFECTS are also facts, not less than causes !!
As I said some weeks ago, depending on the relation between gravitational pull and affected object initial velocity vectors, the trajectory might be rectilinear, parabolic, circular or elliptical … And the way inertia manifests itself varies depending on the type of movement the object is “forced” to have, on the degree and type of “freedom” he has to respond to the pull. Is analyzing those facts something "irrational" ?? NOT AT ALL.

Nature does not split the acceleration into two components with one pulling it sideways and the other adjusting its forward speed - that is where you're producing an abstraction of the simpler underlying reality, turning one real force into two fake ones.

Please, don´t mix things up: an "instrumental" (but necessary for the analysis of the EFFECTS) split of acceleration vector doesn´t imply any split of real causing force, let alone the necessity of finding a real point where those force components could be exerted from !!
That´s the quite ABSURD idea YOU many times have referred to, perhaps because it would be necessary for a simulation similar to YOURS, but that I never thought of !!
By the way, why to "split" moon´s pull (or caused acceleration) on each location into its two orthogonal components is a not valid abstraction, less "real" than the so called "differential force", which subtracts pull vectors at locations thousand km apart, and the result of that subtraction is the "real" and unique cause of tides, according to "your mechanism" ??

Quoting something from a lexicographer does not turn reality into abstract

When you're dealing with dictionary definitions, you're exposing yourself to a lot of errors which come from lexicographers

Dictionaries certainly do have errors ... But good ones doesn´t just "come from lexicographers". They have a lot of specialist collaborators who intervene where different science branches are affected !!
Please kindly have a look to attached Oxford Dictionary "Bibliographical Information" ...
And as far as Encyclopedia Britannica is concerned, looking for a link to include here I saw:
" ... 27 REFERENCES FOUND IN BRITANNICA ARTICLES
Assorted References
contribution by Cayley
(In Arthur Cayley)
epistemological importance
(In epistemology: The origins of knowledge)
logic
(In formal logic)
(In history of logic: The 16th century)
metalogic
(In metalogic: Syntax and semantics)
terminology
Again, those first level institutions do have specialists such as philosophers (and scientists indeed), not just “lexicographers” as you say !!

Again: centrifugal force vector, as an inertial effect inherent in any curved movement, is always equal but opposite to centripetal force, whatever the agent which causes the later ...
Thanks for clearing that up. It confirms that your centripetal force doesn't line up correctly with the tidal forces throughout most of an elliptical orbit, so your bulges would appear in the wrong place

What in italics is just what YOU say ... Could you please be more explicit, so that we all could know why YOU say so?

I've spent years building a dictionary for AGI systems where everything is correctly mapped and defined, throwing out all the error-ridden junk that comes from people who are not great philosophers or logicians and who make mistakes in their definitions. You can't build AGI on their faulty definitions because they don't transform correctly. Your problem is that you are worshipping faulty dictionaries and allowing them to shackle your thinking.

If as you say, you have "spent years building a dictionary for AGI systems where everything is correctly mapped and defined …”, did you reach the term “movement”?
Because you have used here that term as if it could be the single cause of some forces … But sometimes you have added (when referring to some “movement” causing forces) expressions such as "its energy" … or "its velocity” …
Do you even want to give AGI that fuzzy “style” to make AI more “human” ??
And, what unit would you use to quantify “movements” ? Because, as I already told you, “movement" is not a variable or function in Physics, at least as we know that science today !! ) Apart from "your" AGI dictionary, are you also planning a complete overhaul and thorough change of Physics ??
 

Your idea of an educated adult is someone who filled their head with authoritative data as teenagers and who trust that data unthinkingly for the rest of their lives. That is not my idea of what an educated adult should be. An educated adult is one who knows a lot, but who also knows that they should not trust what they've been taught and that they need to question it repeatedly, testing it to see if it breaks. You appear to have failed to learn to do that most important thing. Rubbish in --> rubbish out. You are a rubbish-regurgitator. Look at what you've done here: you have accommodated an error in dictionaries (assuming that they don't offer alternative definitions that tell you they aren't all abstractions - maybe they do and you've just hidden that information because it doesn't suit your argument, but I'll assume you aren't being that dishonest) and applied it without stopping to question its validity.

You keep LYING, or at least INVENTING things ...
Neither am I "worshipping faulty dictionaries and allowing them to shackle yours (mine) thinking”, nor "have accommodated an error in dictionaries (assuming that they don't offer alternative definitions that tell you they aren't all abstractions - maybe they do and you've just hidden that information because it doesn't suit your argument, but I'll assume you aren't being that dishonest) and applied it without stopping to question its validity” WHATSOEVER !!
… All things I´ve said here come from my background in affected areas, which certainly initiated building when I was a teenager, but continued with a seven yearly university course degree, and afterwards all my long career … Main basic Physics concepts and principles I learnt since the very beginning eventually proved right, consistent with higher level stuff (theoretical and practical) I met later ... Well, I must admit I haven´t been able to properly grasp Einstein relativity ... And even I could say I don´t fully agree with him, but "rationally" I have to accept it is HE who must be right !! (not like you, who dare challenge Newton´s Motion Laws !!)
And I didn´t “fill(ed) (their) my  head with authoritative data as teenagers and (who) trust that data unthinkingly for the rest of …”.
 Apart from frequent confrontations with reality over my long career, as I´ve said here several times I initially didn´t fully agree with the previously referred NASA  scientists (and others), discussed with some of them, and eventually managed to grasp and agree with what they clearly stand for (with most of it) ...
And, not being possible to try something similar with Einstein, I even opened a thread here, headed:
"Equivalence principle´s roots: are they that strong and clear? (9/11/17)
When I have quoted here dictionary definitions, it has been not to “learn" something, but to show YOU (and others) what I was saying was not something just kind of invented by me, and also trying YOU not to use the excuse of not understanding my "poor" English, and the way of expressing myself, as you did several times !!

[rmolnav]

The system didn´t accept the attachment of the Oxford Dictionary document, because it is bigger than 1000 MB, what I didn´t realized ...
I have chosen only collaborator names starting with A or B, what is sufficient for the purpose ...

[David Cooper]

Your analysis is irrational - you are ignoring the real causes and asserting that other things are causes even though they are mere abstractions.

You keep kind of LYING, because I´ve never said anything even just suggesting I either ignore moon´s pull is the real CAUSE, or assert other "mere abstractions" are causes whatsoever !!

You repeatedly asserted the superiority of your method and the wrongness of mine. Your method attributes the action to fake causes with fake forces which go against my mechanism in which the Earth and moon simply apply a force on each other along a single line. If you recognised that your mechanism is inferior to mine because mine simulates the real forces (and real causes) rather than your imaginary ones (which are fake causes), then that would be a big advance. This entire argument is only happening because you keep pushing the wrong mechanism as the superior one rather than accepting that it is inferior (and plain wrong).

And EFFECTS are also facts, not less than causes !!

Fake, imaginary effects are not facts. Your centripetal and centrifugal forces are not facts, but fabrications.

As I said some weeks ago, depending on the relation between gravitational pull and affected object initial velocity vectors, the trajectory might be rectilinear, parabolic, circular or elliptical … And the way inertia manifests itself varies depending on the type of movement the object is “forced” to have, on the degree and type of “freedom” he has to respond to the pull. Is analyzing those facts something "irrational" ?? NOT AT ALL.

If you want to analyse that, all you have to do is shift to a frame of reference in which the object is stationary, apply the acceleration from the single force that exists, then convert back to the original frame to see the result. In every case, the action will look the same from the frame of reference in which the object is stationary for a given direction and strength of force. This shows you that you're overcomplicating something really simple.

Please, don´t mix things up: an "instrumental" (but necessary for the analysis of the EFFECTS) split of acceleration vector doesn´t imply any split of real causing force, let alone the necessity of finding a real point where those force components could be exerted from !!
That´s the quite ABSURD idea YOU many times have referred to, perhaps because it would be necessary for a simulation similar to YOURS, but that I never thought of !!

In which case, you're effectively recognising the stupidity of your mechanism and the rationality of mine, so why not just say so directly.

By the way, why to "split" moon´s pull (or caused acceleration) on each location into its two orthogonal components is a not valid abstraction, less "real" than the so called "differential force", which subtracts pull vectors at locations thousand km apart, and the result of that subtraction is the "real" and unique cause of tides, according to "your mechanism" ??

If we place a couple of massive objects some way apart in deep space and they begin to attract themselves towards each other, we can see that there is a force acting in a straight line between the two. We don't split it into two vectors going at different angles and imagine that that's just as good a mechanism - that would be raving bonkers. To do the job most correctly, we would apply a different force from each piece of matter on every other piece of matter rather than combining them all into a single pull from the centre of gravity of each object, but our simplified version with a single pull is used to represent that, speeding up the simulation by reducing the number of calculations needed. What we absolutely don't do though is invent forces coming from directions far out from the objects and pretend that they are part of the mechanism..

Differential gravity is again just the result of the combined pull on every bit of matter from every other bit of matter. Again we simplify the simulation by applying the pull from each object as if it's a single force from the CG of that object, but we expect people to understand that this is not the reality - it's a shortcut to speed up the simulation and we don't assert that this shortcut is the correct mechanism. Nature combines all the forces that are pulling on each particle, and it tries to accelerate in the direction that results from that "tug of war". In the simulation, we simplify the tug of war to two forces (or three if we include the sun), and we take into account how strong the forces are for particles which are having those forces applied to them according to their distance from the sources of the pulls. We combine them together to get the resulting combined pull, but we do it by working with numbers while nature does it more directly just by having pull strength win out. In a simulation we're working with virtual objects whose positions are manipulated through numbers, so it's not a direct replica of reality with actual forces in action, but it's the virtual world equivalent of the real with each aspect of the real action being represented, albeit with some of them simplified in order to make the simulation run fast. What we absolutely should not do though is simulate fake forces coming from the wrong angles and applying incorrect strengths of pull and push - that would be moving off into a mere abstraction.

Dictionaries certainly do have errors ... But good ones doesn´t just "come from lexicographers". They have a lot of specialist collaborators who intervene where different science branches are affected !!

Regardless of any input from such specialists, they are bug-ridden definitions which are nowhere near good enough for use in AGI systems.

Thanks for clearing that up. It confirms that your centripetal force doesn't line up correctly with the tidal forces throughout most of an elliptical orbit, so your bulges would appear in the wrong place

What in italics is just what YOU say ... Could you please be more explicit, so that we all could know why YOU say so?

I've already explained what I mean by that. The tidal forces are hardly ever in line with your centrifugal force if the orbit is elliptical. I've also pointed out though that you have another imaginary force applying which will correct that, but that you can't call it centrifugal.

If as you say, you have "spent years building a dictionary for AGI systems where everything is correctly mapped and defined …”, did you reach the term “movement”?
Because you have used here that term as if it could be the single cause of some forces … But sometimes you have added (when referring to some “movement” causing forces) expressions such as "its energy" … or "its velocity” …

Movement is simply a change in location of something. What a movement might cause or be caused by is not a necessary part of the definition, so that goes into a different kind of file where knowledge of how things interact is stored. In that file, information will state somewhere the movement of a ball on the end of a string round a fixed point can generate centripetal and reactive centrifugal force in the string. If you were writing that file, what would you say happens? Would you want the AGI system to believe that the existence of centripetal and reactive centrifugal force in the string causes the ball to move? If so, you would be creating AGS (artificial general stupidity) instead of AGI, and no one will buy that kind of software.

Do you even want to give AGI that fuzzy “style” to make AI more “human” ??

What fuzzy style? Everything simply needs to be described as what it is or does.

And, what unit would you use to quantify “movements” ? Because, as I already told you, “movement" is not a variable or function in Physics, at least as we know that science today !! )

Movement is simply change of location of an object. If you need to apply numbers to it, you need to have a means of measuring distance and time, and then you can assert speeds for movements.

Apart from "your" AGI dictionary, are you also planning a complete overhaul and thorough change of Physics ??[/b]

AGI will overhaul physics by going through everything that's ever been written on the subject, throwing out all the crud and sorting out the mess. It isn't something humans can be trusted to do properly because they make too many mistakes in their thinking.

You keep LYING, or at least INVENTING things ...
Neither am I "worshipping faulty dictionaries and allowing them to shackle yours (mine) thinking”, nor "have accommodated an error in dictionaries (assuming that they don't offer alternative definitions that tell you they aren't all abstractions - maybe they do and you've just hidden that information because it doesn't suit your argument, but I'll assume you aren't being that dishonest) and applied it without stopping to question its validity” WHATSOEVER !!

You were asserting that my mechanism is just as much an abstraction as yours, but it isn't. You provided a justification for your claim by using a dictionary definition of "concept" which called it an abstraction. I told you that my simulation's mechanism isn't an abstraction, and the reason it isn't an abstraction is that it maps to the actual mechanism correctly (albeit with some shortcuts, but it would be fully possible to do the simulation the proper way with a different force being applied from each particle to avoid that [and we acknowledge that the real mechanism works that way] - it would just run too slowly for a simulation to get anywhere).

… All things I´ve said here come from my background in affected areas, which certainly initiated building when I was a teenager, but continued with a seven yearly university course degree, and afterwards all my long career … Main basic Physics concepts and principles I learnt since the very beginning eventually proved right, consistent with higher level stuff (theoretical and practical) I met later ...

But you trip over certain things because you put too much trust in incorrect rules and definitions.

... Well, I must admit I haven´t been able to properly grasp Einstein relativity ... And even I could say I don´t fully agree with him, but "rationally" I have to accept it is HE who must be right !! (not like you, who dare challenge Newton´s Motion Laws !!)

Why would you just accept that HE must be right? Rationally you should check his work to see if it's right and not just trust other people's judgement. AGI will have a lot to say about that, but that's not for this thread to explore.

And I didn´t “fill(ed) (their) my  head with authoritative data as teenagers and (who) trust that data unthinkingly for the rest of …”.
 Apart from frequent confrontations with reality over my long career, as I´ve said here several times I initially didn´t fully agree with the previously referred NASA  scientists (and others), discussed with some of them, and eventually managed to grasp and agree with what they clearly stand for (with most of it) ...

But you defend it by appealing to authority rather than to actual physics. You are applying fake forces which come from the wrong direction - those should be easy to recognise as a nonsense and to throw out, but you haven't done that with them. Why not?

And, not being possible to try something similar with Einstein, I even opened a thread here, headed:
"Equivalence principle´s roots: are they that strong and clear? (9/11/17)

How is that "not being possible to try something similar with Einstein"?

When I have quoted here dictionary definitions, it has been not to “learn" something, but to show YOU (and others) what I was saying was not something just kind of invented by me, and also trying YOU not to use the excuse of not understanding my "poor" English, and the way of expressing myself, as you did several times !!

I assumed a lot of the time that you were just expressing things badly when what you were saying was so wayward. It transpired that what you were saying was actually very wayward, and that wasn't something that seemed likely given that you do actually have an extensive knowledge of lots of parts of physics. The problem you have is that there are some parts of that knowledge which are plain wrong, and instead of accepting that it contains errors and correcting them, you're digging in, backing them up with quotes from dictionaries and the like, but that doesn't fix anything. A force can cause a movement, but a movement can also cause a force, and no amount of books that say otherwise can overturn the reality of actual physics where a movement can generate a force. If you want to show a faulty source in order to explain why you got something wrong (having trusted that source), then that's fine - I'm happy to transfer the blame away from you. What really matters though is whether you're going to dig into those incorrect positions or whether you're capable of correcting the faults in your understanding. Likewise, if there are faults in my position, I want to correct them, and I extend that into the fantasy physics of warped centripetal force coming from the wrong place and non-existent centrifugal force - even though they aren't real physics, I still want to improve my understanding of how the people who use them in calculations apply them. That's why creating a simulation of your bonkers mechanism would still be a fun thing to do, and it would be educational, making it plain to everyone who sees it just how mad an abstraction it is.

[rmolnav]

Dictionaries certainly do have errors ... But good ones doesn´t just "come from lexicographers". They have a lot of specialist collaborators who intervene where different science branches are affected !!
Regardless of any input from such specialists, they are bug-ridden definitions which are nowhere near good enough for use in AGI systems.

You know, when I got my degree (and my very first career years indeed) the term "algorithm" was almost not used at all, because computers were almost inexistent, at least for most of us.
But for "manual" calculations of many things (e.g.: maximum allowed draft and/or cargo on a particular ship), having to satisfy certain rather complex international regulations, we had what could actually be called an algorithm: a printed form drafted by somebody, where all calculation single steps (concepts, variables, units, maths operations ...) were "100%" clearly shown. That way students, and medium level staff of companies, could made the calculations ...
We called it, especially when students, "donkey-guide" (guia-burros). ...Computers are kind of donkeys. That´s why AGI systems need what you refer to ...
Should we behave like them ? I personally think that, if AGI fully developed at all, it would be a very sad lost of our rich vocabulary, and, still worst, of our much more complex and fruitful intelligence !!
And you are already partially behaving in that line ... E.g.: not accepting a real "gravitational" force, or one of its orthogonal components, could also be considered "centripetal", even if that "part" of the force were causing on the moving object an effect quite different from what the "rest" of the force causes, and with different inertial effects ...
Sorry, but that sounds like if you thought most people were kind of "donkeys" !!

What fuzzy style? Everything simply needs to be described as what it is or does.

You yourself said here "movement" of an object can cause a force, or its "velocity" causes the force, or its "energy": kind of "fuzzy" style of you, perhaps due to the sheer fact that the statement is erroneous !! , and you yourself don´t have it clear ...
I remember that, very early here, you said your "science" doesn´t need to check any information from others, that it comes just from the way you "see" nature behaves ... Don´t you know our eyes can see only a small fraction of reality, and that our brain "puts" the rest, generally biassed by our previous ideas and memory ??
If when a moving object "contacts" another and changes its speed vector, you only "see" what you say, and decide that is the whole story, you are clearly incurring in what above said !!
Now you say:

Movement is simply change of location of an object. If you need to apply numbers to it, you need to have a means of measuring distance and time, and then you can assert speeds for movements.

Could you please specify how the "speed" of an object (unit: m/sec) can directly cause a force (unit: newton) on other object ?

Why would you just accept that HE must be right? Rationally you should check his work to see if it's right and not just trust other people's judgement.

Come on! I have to accept Einstein “must” be right, in the sense of overwhelming likelihood !! I did check "his work to see if it's right”, but not being able to grasp it properly, and keeping in mind the whole wake of his theory, I have to say he “must” be the right, not me !!
 

How is that "not being possible to try something similar with Einstein"?

What an absurd question ! … Being Einstein dead, however “brilliant” (but opposite to his theory) ideas I could have, it would be impossible to discuss  them directly with him, as I did e.g. with the NOAA scientists !!

Your centripetal and centrifugal forces are not facts, but fabrications.

I have in mind some fresh way to try and explain again that is utterly erroneous ... Not quite "fresh", because it is in line with what I said on two first parts of my series "MY ULTIMATE GO?” (#362 and #364)... But more concise, and directly related to something said by you on your last post.
But I prefer not to post it before having it better drafted, to make it more difficult to misinterpret … or twist on purpose !!

[David Cooper]

You know, when I got my degree (and my very first career years indeed) the term "algorithm" was almost not used at all, because computers were almost inexistent, at least for most of us.
But for "manual" calculations of many things (e.g.: maximum allowed draft and/or cargo on a particular ship), having to satisfy certain rather complex international regulations, we had what could actually be called an algorithm: a printed form drafted by somebody, where all calculation single steps (concepts, variables, units, maths operations ...) were "100%" clearly shown. That way students, and medium level staff of companies, could made the calculations ...
We called it, especially when students, "donkey-guide" (guia-burros). ...Computers are kind of donkeys. That´s why AGI systems need what you refer to ...
Should we behave like them ? I personally think that, if AGI fully developed at all, it would be a very sad lost of our rich vocabulary, and, still worst, of our much more complex and fruitful intelligence !!

The whole point is that you can't understand things properly if you run everything on top of faulty definitions, and the more errors involved, the worse the system will perform. We can read definitions of words in dictionaries and try to work with them, but each of us has our own definition (or set of definitions) of each word stored away in our subconscious behind the scenes, and that's what we actually work with when thinking - that's why we aren't rendered stupid by warped dictionary definitions and bad rules, because we don't depend on those for our thinking. There's no guarantee that the subconscious definitions that we actually run on are correct either though - many of those subconscious definitions will be wrong too, and that's a large part of the reason that some individuals are much more rational in their thinking than others, but even the poor performers do a better job than they would if they were applying dictionary definitions compiled by lexicographers. We set up our subconscious definitions in early childhood, the vast bulk of this being done before the age of two, and a substantial chunk of that is done before the age of one. Those are the years in which we set up the system that will determine how rational we will be for the rest of our lives, so they're really important - children of that age need a lot of input to maximise their potential. We then use that system to override any bad definitions that are thrown at us because we have a robust inner understanding of things which is not misled by the error-ridden junk that books throw at us, although if our robust inner understanding contains too many misunderstandings, this can prevent us for recognising the need to correct those inner errors when we're shown correct definitions in books, so it can work both ways. However, most of the time, our inner rules and definitions are superior to those consciously set out in print by experts, and that's why artificial intelligence is so hard to build - most of the people trying to design it are using inferior definitions and rules to the subconscious ones on which they themselves run, and they can't access their own inner definitions and rules in the subconscious because the brain simply didn't evolve a way to access them consciously.

To build AGI, we need to run it on better definitions than the ones in any printed dictionaries. We also want AGI to be able to rewrite its definitions for itself so that it can evolve greater and greater intelligence by eliminating any errors in the system, but a minimum amount of intelligence needs to be working properly before it is sufficiently competent to be able to judge whether something is an error or not and whether the correction is an improvement. The most intelligent humans can do this, but lesser ones are less good at the task, and some are stuck with so many errors which they can't correct that they are incapable of improving and just go on talking endless carp for their entire lives.

And you are already partially behaving in that line ... E.g.: not accepting a real "gravitational" force, or one of its orthogonal components, could also be considered "centripetal", even if that "part" of the force were causing on the moving object an effect quite different from what the "rest" of the force causes, and with different inertial effects ...

I don't have a big problem with you calling gravitational force centripetal as it's clear that it's an established usage, but I do have a problem with that misleading you into thinking it works the same way as the centripetal force in a string with a ball going round on the end of it. You have failed to distinguish between two radically different cases, and that has led you into big errors. You're also making an artificial division of the gravity force if you decide that some of it is centripetal and the rest not - any such artificial division is an abstraction, taking you away from a real understanding of the mechanism.

Sorry, but that sounds like if you thought most people were kind of "donkeys" !!

Like I said - people have subconscious access to much more extensively debugged definitions, and their thinking runs on those. AGI needs to do the same as NGI if it is to match NGI thinking capabilities.

What fuzzy style? Everything simply needs to be described as what it is or does.

You yourself said here "movement" of an object can cause a force, or its "velocity" causes the force, or its "energy": kind of "fuzzy" style of you, perhaps due to the sheer fact that the statement is erroneous !! , and you yourself don´t have it clear ...

I have described things in multiple ways in order to try to help you understand the point - there's nothing fuzzy about it. If I tell you that the movement generates the force and you fail to understand that because you have problems understanding what movement is, the next thing to try is discussing its speed of travel and how that is not changed when a moving ball hooks into the end of the string and starts to go round the pole, generating centripetal force in the string as a result. When you fail to understand that, I try moving on to discuss the energy being added to the ball to make it move in the first place, and how the centripetal force doesn't remove that energy or cause it, but is generated by it. You have a serious mental block over that entire issue and I've been unable to help you get past it as there's a limit to how many different ways it can be described, but the problem here is that you have an error in your subconscious set of rules which you're unable to correct, so you're stuck where you are with an inability to understand what's going on in this case. It really is startlingly simple though: the movement of the ball comes first, then once it's hooked into the end of the string, centripetal force is generated in the string, and that force then changes the direction of travel of the ball. The movement causes the force to appear, and the force then causes the direction of travel to change, but doesn't increase or decrease the amount of movement of the ball. However, you are determined that the centripetal force must generate the ball's movement rather than the other way round, and that simply won't work - if the ball's stationary to start with, no centripetal force will ever appear in the string to make the ball move round.

I remember that, very early here, you said your "science" doesn´t need to check any information from others, that it comes just from the way you "see" nature behaves ... Don´t you know our eyes can see only a small fraction of reality, and that our brain "puts" the rest, generally biassed by our previous ideas and memory ??

When I can see the mechanism behind something and I read stuff written by an expert which conflicts with the mechanism that is clearly involved, I trust nature over that expert every time. I'll still listen to him/her and check what (s)he's saying to see if I've missed something, but in most cases it soon becomes clear that the expert is simply wrong. In most cases though, there is no conflict in the first place - I see the mechanism, then look at what the experts are saying, and I find that they're describing the same mechanism that nature is showing me. It's only in the cases where what they say disagrees with the obvious mechanism that it gets interesting, and there are very few such cases in physics when the establishment has got it horribly wrong.

If when a moving object "contacts" another and changes its speed vector, you only "see" what you say, and decide that is the whole story, you are clearly incurring in what above said !![/b]

What am I missing there? Part of seeing what's going on involves taking advantage of any better views that are available, such as slowed down video showing objects compress on colliding, and knowledge about atoms and their workings. Whenever we try to understand the world around us, we try to simulate it in our head, and if we can get the two things to match up, we have some kind of understanding of what's going on. Sometimes it will be a misunderstanding, and sometimes it will have some gaps in it which aren't fully understood, but we do the best we can. Science investigates the holes and helps us improve our mental models of the external reality. It the case of gravity and tides, I started out by running a simulation in my head, then I reproduced it in computer code which confirmed that it worked correctly. With a ball bouncing off something, I see a change of direction for some angles of impact, some losses as heat is generated, and a transfer of movement energy depending on how fixed or free the other item is to move. I learned a fair bit from watching snooker on television - we all do. In most cases, I can predict what will happen when things in the real world interact because I can run a simulation of it in my head in advance. We can all do this, but some do it better than others, all depending on how extensive their understanding is and the way they prioritise the calculations. Some people imagine that if they jump out of a moving train, they'll land in the direction they jump in, but others run a better model in their head and account for the movement of the train too, so they're less likely to get injured on landing. Those of us who are interested in science tend to be a lot better at judgements of that kind than people who aren't, but there's a lot of variation in ability between different people with the same level of interest in science, and you are a particularly poor performer, as revealed by the ball on the string thing.

Now you say:

Movement is simply change of location of an object. If you need to apply numbers to it, you need to have a means of measuring distance and time, and then you can assert speeds for movements.

Could you please specify how the "speed" of an object (unit: m/sec) can directly cause a force (unit: newton) on other object ?

Imagine a ball sitting on the floor and a ball of similar mass rolling towards it. When the moving ball hits the other, it stops and the other ball starts moving instead. A force was applied by one ball to the other to make the latter move, and in the opposite direction a force was applied which stopped the ball that was previously moving. The ball that was moving first applied a force to the other ball to set it moving (that's a movement causing a force which then causes a movement), though a reactive force was also generated which stopped the first ball. (Change frame of reference and you could find the roles reversing, so that leads into complexities and different accounts of the action depending on which theory of relativity you want to apply.)

Why would you just accept that HE must be right? Rationally you should check his work to see if it's right and not just trust other people's judgement.

Come on! I have to accept Einstein “must” be right, in the sense of overwhelming likelihood !! I did check "his work to see if it's right”, but not being able to grasp it properly, and keeping in mind the whole wake of his theory, I have to say he “must” be the right, not me !!

That's very trusting of you. I don't trust anyone in that way, so if a big theory that I don't understand is backed by an establishment, I don't decide that it must be right, but that it's likely that it's right given that it has overwhelming acceptance, but there are plenty of cases even in science where there is overwhelming acceptance of something that later turns out to be plain wrong. We also have a conflict between QM and Einstein's relativity that tells us that one of them is wrong, and I already know which one of them's going to end up being thrown out.

How is that "not being possible to try something similar with Einstein"?

What an absurd question ! … Being Einstein dead, however “brilliant” (but opposite to his theory) ideas I could have, it would be impossible to discuss  them directly with him, as I did e.g. with the NOAA scientists !!

There's nothing absurd about the question - it was an attempt to find out what you were talking about, and it's only now that I realise that you were referring to the idea of having a discussion with him. There's no shortage of representatives of Einstein though, so such a conversation can be had with them, although there's wide range of opinion about what Einstein's position was, to the point that a professional physicist who frequents this forum was at one time banned from a leading physics forum for stating what Einstein's position was and proving the case by supplying quotes from Einstein's own writings. (Many physics forums are run by trolls.)

Your centripetal and centrifugal forces are not facts, but fabrications.

I have in mind some fresh way to try and explain again that is utterly erroneous ... Not quite "fresh", because it is in line with what I said on two first parts of my series "MY ULTIMATE GO?” (#362 and #364)... But more concise, and directly related to something said by you on your last post.
But I prefer not to post it before having it better drafted, to make it more difficult to misinterpret … or twist on purpose !!

With elliptical orbits, most of the time you have both of these forces acting along a line that points away from the source of the gravitational force, and that makes your forces fabrications.

[rmolnav]

Imagine a ball sitting on the floor and a ball of similar mass rolling towards it. When the moving ball hits the other, it stops and the other ball starts moving instead. A force was applied by one ball to the other to make the latter move, and in the opposite direction a force was applied which stopped the ball that was previously moving. The ball that was moving first applied a force to the other ball to set it moving (that's a movement causing a force which then causes a movement), though a reactive force was also generated which stopped the first ball.

I know that wrong theory of yours. You´ve used in several scenarios: ball hanging from a string (if made move, it “produces” a centripetal force), the collision of snooker balls, and now what quoted …
I already refuted first one, but you didn´t get it.
The two others are similar. I´ll explain why you are wrong analyzing snooker case. I´ll follow what I’ve always considered real Physic science, learnt as teenager, but matching with ALL I´ve experienced latter.
- What is actually transferred is MOMENTUM, mass multiplied by velocity.
- For that to occur, FIRST necessary thing is to decrease first ball velocity: second ball cannot get any momentum before first one´s diminishes …
- That ONLY can be produced by a FORCE exerted by the second ball on the first one, which starts braking it (Newton´s First and Second Motion Laws). In our case that force comes from the static friction (however small it could be), and surface tension of water .
Then, “in the blink of an eye”, several things happen:
- Initially some transient micro-deformations on both colliding surfaces (without momentum transference, though with some lost of energy).
- Then the braking force F, during an infinitesimal amount of time (dt), exerts a MECHANICAL IMPULSE F*dt (I suppose that´s the correct name in English, as in Spanish it is called "Impulso Mecánico").
- That decreases first ball (of mass M) momentum in M*dV (being dV the infinitesimal decrease of velocity).
- That infinitesimal decrease of first ball momentum is transferred to the second ball, but thanks to the reaction FORCE F that the first ball exerts back on the second, equal but opposite to the one which brakes the first ball (Newton´s Third Motion Law).
- If the second ball mass is m, not considering energy wasted, its momentum increases (initially starting from zero) m*dv = F*dt = M*dV …
That continuously happens during a finite amount of time, though very, very small …
- Those infinitesimal momentum transferences add up, until first ball eventually stops. The force F changes with time, because friction and water surface tension varies.
THEREFORE, it is ALWAYS a FORCE what directly causes (or changes) the movement, not the opposite. The movement of the first ball is necessary, but IT DOESN´T DIRECTLY CAUSE ANY FORCE and then a second movement … It is a “reaction" force of first ball which causes second ball movement (by the way, due to another way INERTIA manifests itself), but which requires the previous “action” force of the second ball on the first one !!
DON´T WORRY IF YOUR EYES DON´T "SEE" THAT … Neither do mine ! But my initial education, and my long career experience, makes me be sure things happen so.
If you think otherwise, you should prepare D.C.´s Motion Laws ... Then we all could "enjoy" Newton´s science, Einsteins´s, and yours !!   
 

[David Cooper]

I know that wrong theory of yours. You´ve used in several scenarios: ball hanging from a string (if made move, it “produces” a centripetal force), the collision of snooker balls, and now what quoted …
I already refuted first one, but you didn´t get it.

You haven't refuted any of them - you just imagine that you have because you don't understand that you're wrong.

The two others are similar. I´ll explain why you are wrong analyzing snooker case. I´ll follow what I’ve always considered real Physic science, learnt as teenager, but matching with ALL I´ve experienced latter.
- What is actually transferred is MOMENTUM, mass multiplied by velocity.

Energy is transferred, and it is conserved - energy cannot go missing from the universe when two things collide and change their speed.

- For that to occur, FIRST necessary thing is to decrease first ball velocity: second ball cannot get any momentum before first one´s diminishes …

Which is a transfer of energy from one to the other, the first losing speed and the second gaining speed.

- That ONLY can be produced by a FORCE exerted by the second ball on the first one, which starts braking it (Newton´s First and Second Motion Laws). In our case that force comes from the static friction (however small it could be), and surface tension of water .

You've got it wrong by trying to impose that order on it. Observe it from a different frame of reference and you can reverse the roles and claim that the force acting the other way acted first. In reality, they both apply simultaneously.

Then, “in the blink of an eye”, several things happen:
- Initially some transient micro-deformations on both colliding surfaces (without momentum transference, though with some lost of energy).

Both balls are deforming equally, and the material of each ball on average is in one case slowing down and in the other case speeding up.

- Then the braking force F, during an infinitesimal amount of time (dt), exerts a MECHANICAL IMPULSE F*dt (I suppose that´s the correct name in English, as in Spanish it is called "Impulso Mecánico").
- That decreases first ball (of mass M) momentum in M*dV (being dV the infinitesimal decrease of velocity).
- That infinitesimal decrease of first ball momentum is transferred to the second ball, but thanks to the reaction FORCE F that the first ball exerts back on the second, equal but opposite to the one which brakes the first ball (Newton´s Third Motion Law).
- If the second ball mass is m, not considering energy wasted, its momentum increases (initially starting from zero) m*dv = F*dt = M*dV …
That continuously happens during a finite amount of time, though very, very small …
- Those infinitesimal momentum transferences add up, until first ball eventually stops. The force F changes with time, because friction and water surface tension varies.

And the simplified description of this is that the movement of one ball caused the force which caused the movement of the other ball when they collided (although this is only completely true if the second ball really was at rest previously).

THEREFORE, it is ALWAYS a FORCE what directly causes (or changes) the movement, not the opposite.

Without the movement of the first ball coming first, the forces in question would never be generated. For sure, we'll need some other force to be applied to get the first ball rolling in the first place, but that force is ancient history by the time our moving ball hits the other ball and the forces that act between them are generated.

The movement of the first ball is necessary, but IT DOESN´T DIRECTLY CAUSE ANY FORCE and then a second movement … It is a “reaction" force of first ball which causes second ball movement (by the way, due to another way INERTIA manifests itself), but which requires the previous “action” force of the second ball on the first one !!

Causation happens in chains - it doesn't matter how indirect you want to try to make it, because the movement comes before the forces being generated. The lack of movement of the other ball is also a cause, of course, because we need a difference in movement between the two balls if they are to collide.

DON´T WORRY IF YOUR EYES DON´T "SEE" THAT … Neither do mine ! But my initial education, and my long career experience, makes me be sure things happen so.
If you think otherwise, you should prepare D.C.´s Motion Laws ... Then we all could "enjoy" Newton´s science, Einsteins´s, and yours !!

You claim forces cause movement and that movement can't cause forces, but you're clearly wrong. The forces between the two balls are caused by the relative movement of the balls - it is not the case that those forces cause the relative movement of the balls leading up to the collision where the forces are generated. The balls' relative movement causes the collision and the forces that modify the movement of the balls and which cause energy to be transferred between them.

For anyone new to this thread, this point goes back to a discussion of a ball on a string going round and round an attachment point on a pole where the movement of the ball generates the centripetal and the lesser reactive centrifugal force in the string. No movement of the ball means no forces in the string. The movement of the ball is not caused by the forces in the string, but the modification of the movement of the ball is caused by those forces. The movement of the ball (the fact that it is moving and carrying kinetic energy) is down to some other force being applied to it first (because someone has hit it with a bat), and it's only after that that the forces are generated in the string once the ball is moving. Those forces in the string will appear practically instantly, but it is not the case that the force applied by the bat causes the ball to move by generating forces in the string to make the ball go round on the end of the string - no; the bat hits the ball and causes the ball to move, and that movement then generates the centripetal and reactive centrifugal forces in the string. This is indisputable stuff, and yet it's being disputed by rmolnav.

[rmolnav]

And the simplified description of this is that the movement of one ball caused the force which caused the movement of the other ball when they collided

Without the movement of the first ball coming first, the forces in question would never be generated

As I´ve said many times, the fact that some condition is NECESSARY for something to happen, doesn´t mean it is necessarily the direct CAUSE ...
With your Logics (?) I could also say: without the second ball being there (perhaps even before first ball started to move ...), " the forces in question would never be generated[": that is the "cause" !!

For anyone new to this thread, this point goes back to a discussion of a ball on a string going round and round an attachment point on a pole where the movement of the ball generates the centripetal and the lesser reactive centrifugal force in the string. No movement of the ball means no forces in the string.

I DID already refute that, but you are unable even to imagine the several facts which occur in the really short time when the momentum (and kinetic energy too) is transferred, as explained on my last post for the "snooker" case. On #217 I said:
"In line with what I said about how things happen when we hit a ball attached through a string to a pole (#202)
"Hitting a ball produces a transference of momentum, always through forces. At the very initial instant some deformations (of the ball and the bat) occur, what produces opposite pushes on each other, which then change both speed vectors … The ball gets a speed, and its inertia tries to make it go straight … If a string attached to a pole prevents that to happen, what the ball´s inertia does (its “movement”, in your words) is to tighten the string: it pulls outward the string outer end, and the string inner end will pull on the pole … The pole will react exerting an equal but opposite force on the string (3rd Newton´s Motion Law), a centripetal force … THAT centripetal force makes the rectilinear movement of the ball change into circular movement, that is, it causes the rotational movement … Quite the opposite of what you say !!”
Since the very first instant an initial tension of the string starts to function as centripetal force (otherwise the ball would continue to move in a straight line), and inertia manifests itself reacting to that initial centripetal force (from the string on the ball), with a centrifugal force (equal, but from the ball on the string end), what initiates the tightening of the string mentioned on what quoted, and subsequent (though transient) increase of both centripetal and centrifugal forces.
What you say, in particular what at the beginning quoted and in italics, is CLEARLY contrary to Newton´s Motion First Law:
"Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia. The key point here is that if there is no net force acting on an object (if all the external forces cancel each other out) then the object will maintain a constant velocity. If that velocity is zero, then the object remains at rest. If an external force is applied, the velocity will change because of the force”,
copied from a NASA web site, institution that, among other many feats, several times sent men to the Moon, always within Newton´s Mechanics (apart from any possible nuance Einstein relativity related).
Again: you should either elaborate “your” theory and convey it to Physics main institutions, or change your mind wrong “chip” ...