According to RM:AO Earth and Moon must “migrate toward each other”, because the “concentration/density is greater between” Earth and Moon" than other surrounding areas". So again: what prevents that Earth and Moon do not “migrate toward each other”?
What prevents the Earth and Moon from coming together is what we call “tangential momentum” causing an orbiting. The Moon is in fact always falling toward the Earth, but by the time the Moon gets down to surface level, the Earth isn’t there any more. The Moon is always “over-shooting” the Earth because the Moon has momentum tangent to its migrational fall.
Momentum is the property of an affectance traffic-jam, “mass particle”, that is composed of affectance that is traveling more in one direction than others. As any particle begins to move, for whatever reason, it acquires more affectance within it that is traveling in that same direction as that movement and thus the particle keeps moving even after any reason for it to begin moving has gone away.
Particle momentum has some interesting properties.
That is something everyone already knows about, so perhaps I am not understanding your question.
In the case of the Moon, there is a vector of migration toward the Earth and also one parallel to the Earth’s surface (“tangent”) directly related to the orbital velocity. The combination of the two vectors causes the Moon to curve around the Earth rather than go directly at it or fly off away from it.
Before relativity and RM:AO the calculations for orbiting involved momentum as one of the vectors and “gravitational force” as the other. Relativity converts the concepts into a presumed bent space issue. In RM:AO it is a matter of momentum and migratory acceleration (aka “force of gravity”).
Further proof that Man need not be perfectly right in order to make progress.
He just has to be better at making progress toward being perfectly right.
And your „answer“ was merely a kind of sidestepping:
I know the translation of „tangential momentum“ and thus the meaning of it, at least in general, but I do not exactly know what you mean by it when it comes to cause an orbiting.
In that case, there is definitely a communication problem.
So what part of my explanation did you not understand?
The only difference between my explanation and that of pre-relativity days is that I refer to two vector components of migratory motion rather than two vector components of forces.
Yes. Okay, thank you, James. But why is there a parallel vector of migration to the Earth’s surface?
But “momentum” and “migratory acceleration” are not the same as “force of gravity”. So why “aka”?
Yes, and according to RM:AO there are no forces in the sense of the mainstream physics, especially no pushing and pulling. Your two vector components of migratory motion have a different ontological basis or foundation than the two vector components of forces.
By “why” did you mean “how did it get started” or “why is it still there”?
As I explained, once any concentration of affectance begins to move in any direction, it acquires more affectance within it that is already heading in that direction (aberrantly self-reinforcing) and thus even after any impetus has gone away, it continues in that same direction. So once the Moon began moving parallel to the Earth’s surface, it naturally continued to do so.
I assume, without knowing for certain, that the Moon initially began it’s orbit because it was originally a part of the Earth and broke away. That would explain the direction of its orbit as well as why it is always facing the Earth, not rotating.
By “aka”, I meant that “force of gravity” is what they have been calling it, even though in reality it is merely migration. Additionally, the migration “accelerates” because of that momentum issue. The affectance concentrations begin to move in a direction and thus acquires momentum, but they are still under the influence of a non-symmetric ambient affectance field, so they migrate even more, beyond their existing velocity. And no matter how fast they are going, they are still being influenced by that non-symmetric ambient field so they keep going faster and faster = “accelerating”, acquiring more and more momentum. That is why things that fall go faster and faster as they fall (what used to be called “Newton’s Law”). Today they blame it on “bent-space” (as if that actually made any sense at all).
That is like asking if there is a practicing psychiatrist who is brave enough to say, “Yes, we are going to stop psychiatry by establishing Neuroscience.”
Although RM:AO is the science behind SAM, they are actually two different subjects. Even without RM:AO, SAM is proven very largely by the success of corporations. Today’s corporations are somewhat of a dinosaur to SAM’s form of a corporation … much more advanced and more successful in very significant ways. It really is much like the distinction between a homosapian vs a dinosaur. Anyone might guess that the dinosaurs would win in the end … but guess what.
SAM is the future evolution of Corporations, much smaller and far more intelligent, nimble, and durable (for scientifically provable reasons).
As far as when RM:AO, by whatever new name it will have, breaks through to become the new science, I couldn’t say. I might merely slowly evolve hiding any distinction, as they have done before. Timing is always an issue of having a great deal of current-state information concerning a great many variables. I suspect the annihilation rate of homosapian might exceed the growth rate of RM:AO and of SAM.
One must remember the vast majority, despite their elite dress and manners, are still just pretty simple minded apes. And that doesn’t even include the “uncivilized” countries.
The universe was never “caused”, as in coming from a prior nothingness. It was never “started”. The cause/reason of the universe is the logic of the situation (referred to as “God”).