A Fireside Chat With johnreed, March 5, 2010
johnreed
If you select a physical sub-stratum on which to base a least action
consistent explanation of the least action consistent stable universe
motion, you must determine whether or not your sub-stratum works
because it is consistent with least action motion, or because it is
the cause, or consequence, of that motion.
I say that since all our known models, past and present, have shown a
least action consistency for any mathematical veracity, then the mass
derived, so called universal gravitational model will work, for the
same reason. That is, it will work to the extent that it is consistent
with least action motion.
Mass has many useful definitions. Where each definition reduces to a
"resistance". This then, is the nature of mass: Resistance is
something we feel. This is what we work against. Resistance is a
subjective notion. Resistance. We quantify the resistance in units
of mass. Mass is conserved. So far we have the fact that the
resistance we work against is conserved when we quantify that
resistance in mass units. Mass figures in our planet surface object
interactions. Mass is independent of the celestial attraction
mathematics. ie. All objects fall at the same rate.
Let's take mass out of the incomplete, and limited precise description
provided by the least action consistent mathematics. Mass is a word
and is subject to the cross hair precision of the English language. If
we don't get this precisely defined we wind up in the wash of
mathematically endorsed, but functional ignorance. The notion of mass
as the amount of matter deludes us. I say that mass quantitatively
defines a conserved resistance that we feel, as planet surface
objects. We measure this comparative resistance with a balance scale
and with impact experiments and learn that it is conserved on planet
and moon surfaces and is propootional with respect to distance and
time in all planet and moon surface physical interactions between
planet and moon surface objects, which we qualify as.
And because mass is conserved we think it is a fundamental property of
the universe. We loosely regard it as an amount of matter that
generates the force we feel and call gravity. And because the force WE
APPLY is equal and opposite to the resistance we encounter, we devise
the third law and proportionally generalize our local magnitudes of
force to the entire universe, based solely on least action distance
and time parameters, And we conclude that Gravity (what we feel) is
an attractive force between all objects in the universe.
Since mass units are conserved, the resistance they represent must be
cumulative and additive and apply across grouped fundamental material
entities. What can we accumulate and add too, such that mass is
conserved where the grouped, individual entity, mass magnitudes, may
vary? I say that the resistance we work against is the conserved
cumulative resistance of planet and moon surface atoms.
Therefore we do not feel a universal gravitational force. Provided
this is correct reasoning, can anyone tell me what we do feel? If
inert mass is the quantitative measure of the conserved cumulative
resistance of a planet surface, inert object's atoms (that we measure
and feel), and if we are living, planet surface inert objects; Then
what we measure and feel, and call gravitational force, is the
accelerated, conserved, cumulative resistance of a planet surface
inert object's atoms. This includes the atoms that make up our bodies
and the atoms in the bowling ball that we lift, etc. Provided this is
correct reasoning, we must conclude that the Earth attractor acts on
atoms and not on mass.
This view is wholly consistent with the present mathematical
approaches. However it explains several present theoretical
quandaries.
Have a good time,
johnreed