Section 14 Draft - johnreed
johnlawrencereedjr
we can place one atom at a time in a pan. We have a standard
calibrated mass in the other pan. We can (theoretically) place one
atom at a time in one pan until it is balanced against the standard
mass in the other pan. When we lift either the pan with atoms or the
pan with the standard mass we feel weight. We feel the combination
represented quantitatively as the product [mg] at location [g]. The
quantity [g] represents an acceleration that is dependent solely on a
distance from a center.
In this thought experiment, we observe that the balance scale compares
the resistance of a quantity of atoms to the resistance of a quantity
of matter calibrated in mass units. Given that the thought experiment
is valid, we feel (work against) at location [g], the cumulative
resistance (mass) of the number of atoms in the pure object pan at
that location.
The action of the balance scale, on balance, speaks only to the
uniform attractive force on the contents of each pan. The balance
scale does not tell us what kind of force is acting on the pans. We
can look at it as though it is a uniform attraction on mass, (as
Newton did) or a uniform attraction on atoms (where Newton did not
require any greater distinction than mass). In either view, mass units
are conserved. Question: What is it about mass that allows this?
I asked how we derived the quantity mass in the first place. Mass is
the scalar component of force, where F=mg and F=ma. In the case of
[mg] it comes from the balance scale. Each atom in the pure object
pan is uniformly acted upon by the planet attractor. If this is
correct we should be able to deduce the number of atoms in the pan by
dividing the total weight by the weight of one atom, since in this
gedanken all atoms are identical by definition. However, since the
total weight includes [g], an outside influence, and the weight of one
atom includes [g], also an outside influence, which outside influence
acts uniformly on the balance scale as well, and on us as we observe
the action, we can eliminate the quantity [g] from the frame of the
balance scale action (adding it back in at any specific location to
describe the force we must apply).
Since [g] is the same magnitude depending on location before and after
we obtain a balance, the equation on balance where [mg]1=[mg]2 can be
divided by [g] to yield [m]1=[m]2 on balance. This shows that the
balance scale compares mass [m] (resistance) since the quantity [g] is
a constant influence at any location such a measurement can be made,
and the quantity [mg] represents resistance, a magnitude of matter
that we feel as weight, at any location we can use the balance scale.
Here it appears that we have defined gravitational force in terms that
are subject to what we feel at any location in space. In this case we
define the universe in terms of the force we feel and apply to a
resistance and we generalize that force to the entire universe
because we feel it everywhere. Since the resistance we encounter at
any location [g] is equal and opposite to the force we apply at any
location [g], the subject is closed. That's all we require to
successfully operate within the least action universe.
What we feel is the product of resistance [m] at an accelerative
location in space [g]. Where the balance scale solely compares the
resistance [m], independent of any location [g]. But we always knew
that, didn't we?
LCC
myself. Surely if we can proceed as far as we have in the study of
"charge", developing practical applications in electricity,
electronics, and field theory, then we should be able to do the same
with "mass" for gravitonics. I once approached a processional
mathematician expert in electronics field theory and casually
mentioned that there should be a comparable set of field equations and
applications of mass as for charge. His reply was withering and
condescending at once, as he stated that they were in no way alike
simply because both were inverse square fields. Besides, he claimed,
with gravity so small in its effect, there would be no practical
applications. If he had been polite, I would have pointed out that
much of electronics is based upon time variant fields rather than
electrostatic charge. There is no reason why time variant mass fields
should be useless..
You could produce a time variant mass field through manipulation of
electric fields for charged particles, and we do it all of the time,
with no remarkable effects, except possibly synchrotron radiation.
Getting a grip upon neutral charge particles could be done by
encapsulating them in charged particle sandwiches or buckyballs, or
whatever may be appropriate. Once again, that is done all the time
with neutrons bound into atomic nuclei being manipulated by using the
proton charges or the atomic charge to move atoms about, nothing
surprising occurs.
The only thing which I am prepared to suggest which has NOT been tried
(so far as I know) is the construction of millimeter sized
accelerators powered by micron sized lasers run at Terahertz
frequencies. Any takers? The synchrotron radiation from such a device
might be interesting to observe...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
LCC
Lonnie Courtney Clay
johnlawrencereedjr
myself. Surely if we can proceed as far as we have in the study of
"charge", developing practical applications in electricity,
electronics, and field theory, then we should be able to do the same
with "mass" for gravitonics.
acts on all atoms rather than just on the special case atoms
possessing optimally arranged atomic internal structures, which when
externally optimally arranged pick up and transfer (amplify) the
electromagnetism (light is the slang term) generated into the field by
planet and sun internal dynamos, and direct star radiation. IOW the
electromagnetism that we harness is a special case of electromagnetism
we define as gravity. It appears to me that all I have to show is that
mass is a convenient representation of the cumulative resistance of
atoms which makes the planet attraction a uniform attraction on atoms
which makes gravity a manifestation of electromagnetism..
I once approached a processional
mathematician expert in electronics field theory and casually
mentioned that there should be a comparable set of field equations
and
applications of mass as for charge. His reply was withering and
condescending at once, as he stated that they were in no way alike
simply because both were inverse square fields.
least action consistent representations that we have successfully
defined using the least action consistent mathematics in terms of the
units we can measure like mass and charge, both being least action
consistent quantities as well.
Besides, he claimed,
with gravity so small in its effect, there would be no practical
applications. If he had been polite, I would have pointed out that
much of electronics is based upon time variant fields rather than
electrostatic charge. There is no reason why time variant mass fields
should be useless..
atomic structure. Once we recognize that mass is the cumulative
resistance of atoms and that our notion of gravitational force is the
force we apply in response to the equal and opposite resistance we
encounter and define… it is a small step to consider that
electromagnetism generates matter rather than matter generating
electromagnetic fields.
You could produce a time variant mass field through manipulation of
electric fields for charged particles, and we do it all of the time,
with no remarkable effects, except possibly synchrotron radiation.
Getting a grip upon neutral charge particles could be done by
encapsulating them in charged particle sandwiches or buckyballs, or
whatever may be appropriate. Once again, that is done all the time
with neutrons bound into atomic nuclei being manipulated by using the
proton charges or the atomic charge to move atoms about, nothing
surprising occurs.
The only thing which I am prepared to suggest which has NOT been
tried
(so far as I know) is the construction of millimeter sized
accelerators powered by micron sized lasers run at Terahertz
frequencies. Any takers? The synchrotron radiation from such a device
might be interesting to observe...
Have a good time
johnreed
Lonnie Courtney Clay
Georges Metanomski
> I have on several occasions wondered
> about the nature of "mass"...
===============
Why?
It's a simple abstract coefficient void of any other "nature".
Postulating proportionality of physical observables "force" F and "acceleration" a, we express it mathematically as F = ma
with help of the proportionality coefficient m.
Thus "m" simplifies the expression, but by itself has no physical, or
any other mysterious "nature".
Georges.
einseele
The abstraction Nature, and also that thing that the word points to
Nature es also an abstraction, even so the John's question is valid as
it is simple to understand the referenced object in his sentence
So it is valid to say "the nature of mass", mass and nature can be
abstract concepts, but that does not mean "the nature of mass" makes
no sense.
I can say as well: the nature of Dante's Eternity is... whatever, and
makes perfect sense within the context
Otherwise we would be unable to talk about anything but abstract
models
On Dec 22, 4:57 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Georges Metanomski
--- On Wed, 12/22/10, einseele <eins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you use the word "nature" the
> audience understands two:
>
> The abstraction Nature, and also that thing that the word
> points to
>
> Nature es also an abstraction, even so the John's question
> is valid as
> it is simple to understand the referenced object in his
> sentence
>
> So it is valid to say "the nature of mass", mass and nature
> can be
> abstract concepts, but that does not mean "the nature of
> mass" makes
> no sense.
============
G:
You did not read carefully.
That's exactly what I said, to wit, that the nature of mass is an
abstract, mathematical coefficient void of any physical meaning
(reserved for observables).
What makes no sense is searching in it other mysterious natures,
physical, metaphysical, pataphysical or what not.
For instance, if you asked me, what is the nature of the
"axial vector of magnetic field", I'd answer:
Its physical nature is that of an observable, describing
counter-clockwise rotation of magnetic angular momentum.
Its mathematical nature is that of an anti-symmetric tensor of rank 2.
It happens to have in 3D SPACE 3 independent components, which makes
it similar to a vector and allows to describe it in elementary
handbooks as "axial vector", or "pseudo-vector", which, strictly
speaking are misnomers.
What makes no sens is speculation about the pataphysical nature
and reasons of the counter-clockwise structure of our "world"
and about its clockwise structured shadow counter-world.
And that's mutatis mutandis what John seems to do, looking for
pataphysical nature of mass.
Georges.
==============
einseele
> What makes no sens is speculation about the pataphysical nature
> and reasons of the counter-clockwise structure of our "world"
> and about its clockwise structured shadow counter-world.
Unfortunately physics is beyond reach to me, and I want to call the
attention to your line above.
It has humor, makes sense, denotes high education levels, and the
special rhythm of good literature
You could have it said totally different, but you chose the literary
pathway, why
But even in case you decide to say the same using a cold approach the
question should sustain, because whatever we said/write is always the
barrier between us and that we want to refer. Language has two ends,
like a bridge, we are stuck on this side.
This is an old debate and I will not add anything of value of course,
we dont have any other means but language. I do regret yes, when the
thinker does not take this in account, or when s/he tries to discover
special brain circuits or chemicals to bypass what is obvious, which
is the fact that we are separate forever from the same we want to
grasp on.
I'm also a defender of poetry, which IMO is the closest form to
understand that that we will never be able to say. Your line is a good
case of what I'm saying here.
Georges Metanomski
--- On Thu, 12/23/10, einseele <eins...@gmail.com> wrote:
==============
G old:
What makes no sens is speculation about the pataphysical nature
and reasons of the counter-clockwise structure of our "world"
and about its clockwise structured shadow counter-world.
===========
E:
=============
G:
Thanks very much indeed. I'm gratified and if I answer only now, it's
due to a catastrophe: the cats have pissed on my keyboard which
started displaying some strange, rather poetic things having however
nothing to do with what I tried to type. So I had to wait and steal
enough coins from the cats' milk savings box to by a new one.
Back to poetry, most great scientists were also artists in some way,
often mixing it up with their science. Outside his science Einstein
played violin, but within it considered intuition as 90% of physics,
maths making the vague intuition more precise. He was choosing
his axioms mainly by esthetic criteria and wanted theories to be
beautiful.
Our discussion started with the abstract "nature" of mass.
Now, here is what Feynman says about the "nature" of another
abstraction, to wit, energy. If that's not poetry then it's
well imitated:
***
There is a fact, or if you wish, a law governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law – it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy.
It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call “energy,” that does not change in the manifold changes that nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens.
It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is a strange fact that when we calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same.
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy “is.” We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reason for the various formulas.
***
As for literature, I play with it in my idle moments and some of the
results may be seen in
http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/LITERATURE/
Most are in French and if you don't read it, have a look at
PASSION WEEK and EXECUTIVE BATH POLISHERS.
Cheers
Georges.
LCC
> G:
> Thanks very much indeed. I'm gratified and if I answer only now, it's
> due to a catastrophe: the cats have pissed on my keyboard which
> started displaying some strange, rather poetic things having however
> nothing to do with what I tried to type. So I had to wait and steal
> enough coins from the cats' milk savings box to by a new one.
>
> Georges.
LOL I have no idea why it should be true, but cats in my experience
seem to LOVE stepping on the keyboard. Perhaps you should open up an
editor and let your cat type away until it is satisfied that there is
nothing to gain by playing around that way? The first pet cat which I
had would pi$$ on my pants leg, if that failed to get him scratched
and petted properly, then he would jump up on the desktop to pi$$ on
the computer...
You mean that you give the cats milk? Like fish, cats should be given
a limited amount of milk. Both of those foods interfere with proper
digestion...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
johnlawrencereedjr
That's exactly what I said, to wit, that the nature of mass is an
abstract, mathematical coefficient void of any physical meaning
(reserved for observables).
seeing this near exact response one, two maybe even three years ago.
What you say reduces to the fact that the words we use to define the
physicalness of the universe around us are dependent on our senses.
When we find a word that represents meaning to us that is also
“mathematically” conserved, we think we are on to something, and as we
develop the math we can predict more somethings, and more possible
somethings, but in the end we have no greater comprehension than our
understanding of our first conserved term, be it mass or be it energy,
or be it momentum.
What makes no sense is searching in it other mysterious natures,
seek only to make your convenient mathematical use of conserved
quantities, explicit. To say that the resistance we work against
always equals the force we apply, says nothing at all about the cause
of the resistance we work against.
Then assigning a name to that conserved resistance and blindly
believing it is exalted because it is consistent with the least
action consistent mathematics, when it is nothing more than resistance
to our applied effort, is a bit subjective and centrist.
.
For instance, if you asked me, what is the nature of the
"axial vector of magnetic field", I'd answer:
Its physical nature is that of an observable, describing
counter-clockwise rotation of magnetic angular momentum.
physicist or mathematician that might answer this, to be on this
group. And if she was do you think that this is a location she would
choose to write such drivel.
Its mathematical nature is that of an anti-symmetric tensor of rank
2.
It happens to have in 3D SPACE 3 independent components, which makes
it similar to a vector and allows to describe it in elementary
handbooks as "axial vector", or "pseudo-vector", which, strictly
speaking are misnomers.
leading the gullible and impressionable astray. I have yet to see you
on any physics forum or group, much less any mathematical ones. You
would be laughed out of the topics.
What makes no sens is speculation about the pataphysical nature
and reasons of the counter-clockwise structure of our "world"
and about its clockwise structured shadow counter-world.
And that's mutatis mutandis what John seems to do, looking for
pataphysical nature of mass.
Originally from the balance scale as a scalar component of force. This
resistance is conserved and shows that the planet attractor acts
uniformly on atoms. Its conserved nature (consistency in numerical
results) was taken beyond the balance scale and generalized to matter
throughout the least action consistent universe.
Which definition opens us up to the electromagnetic nature of the
universe, esp wrt gravity.
On Dec 23 2010, 12:01 am, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote: