Re: inertial and gravitational

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** On Behalf Of James N
> Rose
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:03 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: inertial and gravitational
> 
> Tim,
> 
> 
> Your quote of RR indicates he was aware of this
> critical issue, which the reductionist approach
> circumvents rather than addresses head on: the
> dichotomy between particle and force.
-snip-
> It's a crucially tough problem. Identifying it is an
> achievement on its own.  RR did it.  Rendering a resolution
> is another 'matter'.   "-)
> 
> Jamie

Jamie,

Rendering a resolution is indeed another 'matter'. ;) 

As Ayten suggested, it would be beneficial if we could open up the views of
others to "a broadened science". But to convey these broader vistas does
require both compelling arguments and compelling results. Although a lot of
both the former and the latter already exists in Rosen's works, the ability
to demonstrate that additional compelling results can be generated from his
work by others can be of persuasive value. 

With regard to the 3-body problem, I have been looking - as time permits -
for the relational model(s) which would supplement the existing state-based
model. For me, its a fun little project to tinker at when I can, but I also
think it would be helpful to get this solved, so that we can offer a
resolution to go along with such a paradigmatic problem.

Regards,
Tim