In Article <VUU87.4032$uH4.152265@news20.bellglobal.com> Greg Neill wrote:
>> If the mass is pulled from one to the other, then the
>> gravity attraction is strong enough to do this.  So why
>> doesn't the second star just merge with the first?  One
>> part of the star is honoring Newton and abiding by his
>> laws, while the other is not?  Why is the mass moving
>> from one star to the other, if the centrifugal force is
>> strong enough to keep it in its orbit?
>
> Eventually these co-orbiting stars do coalesce.  Such
> closely orbiting bodies raise terrific tides on each other,
> and orbital energy is lost to tidal friction -- they spiral
> into each other.

Here we have the mathematician getting sloppy, injecting, when faced
with the failure of Newton to explain a phenomena, a vague "energy
trading".  This is happening behind the back of Newton, presumably, when
Newton is not looking.

In Article <Hvi87.16200$Tn3.780448@wagner.videotron.net> Greg Neill wrote:
>> Equal and opposite?  If Centrifugal force has to EQUAL
>> the force of gravity pulling inward, it does NOT in this
>> math.  The force inward takes into consideration both
>> masses.  The force outward is only dealing with the mass
>> of the secondary. How can they NOT both consider the
>> same factors!
>
> Please show me where they are not equal if they are written
> as equal:
>        G*M1*M2/r^2 = M2*v^2/r
> The equation above says that they're equal.
> We know that they are equal by observation
>      (circular orbit ==> inward force = outward force)

Nice and tight.  The mass, which presumably includes ALL of that
co-orbiting star that starts to coalesce, should NOT, per Newton, want
to do anything but orbit about nicely, even if torn apart.  Does the
Asteroid Belt not do so?  Why should PART of that sun deviate?  Do
Newton's neat little equations not balance, perfectly, as you stated?