johnreed take 26

[johnlawrencereedjr]

johnreed take 26 - An Astonishing Fact?
January 2, 2009

Begin quote
"Mass is defined by the resistance that a body opposes to its
acceleration (inert mass). It is also measured by the weight of the
body (heavy mass). That these two radically different definitions
lead
to the same value for the mass of a body is, in itself, an
astonishing
fact." End quote
Albert Einstein
.
Why did Einstein, and most of present day physicists, consider this
equivalence astonishing? Why do they consider inert mass and
gravitational mass, as "radically different definitions"? Where all
that is required is an explanation of why so called "gravitational"
mass, is equivalent to inert mass. To do this, does require a more
precise use of words. For example, we think that we feel an
attraction
to the Earth. What we actually feel when we are on the Earth's
surface, is the "cumulative resistance of our atoms" as they each are
pulled toward the Earth. . We feel nothing but atmospheric resistance
during free fall.


Our "feel" of what we call gravity, the "cumulative resistence of our
atoms" in response to the Earth attractor, has been regarded, 'a
priori', as the fundamental cause of our attraction to the Earth, for
as long as the recorded history of thinking. Our "feel" of
resistance,
defined as force, generated the ideas of "up and down", "Heaven and
Hell", "a flat world", and even the "Earth as the center of the
universe". It is the basis for Newton's universe and Einstein's
universe. The idea of "up and down", through the idea of "a curved
space time", originates from the same 'a priori' notion. The
subjective notion that what we feel (the cumulative resistance of our
atoms), is fundamental, augmented by the idea that our quantitative
description for what we feel, can be proportionally generalized to
the
planets and stars, through Kepler's (least action), law of areas [1].


The cumulative resistance of (our) atoms, has been defined as inert
mass. In the case of our attraction to the Earth (which we do not
feel), we have labeled the resistance that we do feel as
"gravitational mass", rather than just a special case of inerl mass
(the cumulative resistance of an object's atoms). Where in both the
gravitational and the inert mass cases, we feel the cumulative
resistance of (our) atoms. We think that the cumulative resistance of
atoms that we feel, causes that cumulative resistance. Where the
cumulative resistance of our atoms that we feel, is completely
contained within the four corners of our body. Since our so called
"gravitational" mass is the cumulative resistence of our atoms (what
we feel), and since all atoms fall at the same rate regardless of
their mass, it should be apparent that the Earth attractor acts on
atoms (matter), and not on the cumulative resistance of the atoms
(matter). It should also be apparent that the cumulative resistance
of
atoms (matter) is not an attraction.


The fact that the cumulative resistance of atoms (matter) is
conserved
with respect to all the objects we can measure, and since our feel of
the cumulative resistance of our atoms (matter) is loosely defined as
a force,
that causes an attraction between objects, we generalize the
resistance we feel, as an attractive force between all the objects in
the universe. This was Newton's position: "Since it is true for all
the matter we can measure, it is true for all matter whatsoever."
Paraphrased. With that assumptive generalization for a subjectively
defined, nonetheless universal, quantitative, notion of an equal and
opposite force, we elevate inert mass, to invent a universally
controlling "gravitational" mass. Where the reason for the
equivalence, is because they are each the cumulative resistance of an
object's atoms (matter). Where we are inertial mass objects. Note
that
the cumulative resistance of atoms (matter) is the so called force we
feel. Our feel of the cumulative resistance of our atoms (matter)
does
not transfer to a universal attractive force, generated by the
cumulative resistance of atoms (matter). Nor does our feel of the
cumulative resistance of our atoms (matter) cause a curved space-
time.
Here is the equivalence in words:
:
1) [inert mass = the cumulative resistance of an object's atoms
(matter) = gravitational mass (what we feel)]


What is astonishing about this equivalence? How are the definitions
radically different?


Endnote
[1] Newton defined centripetal force in terms of his second and third
law, by setting his first law object on a circular trajectory, at a
uniform motion. Here the law of areas together with its
(unrecognized)
controlling time function, falls out as a "joined" artifact of the
efficient area enclosing circle itself. He then connected the
(unrecognized) efficient time artifact of the uniform circle motion,
to Kepler's efficient, time (unrecognized) controlled, law of areas.
Newton generalized Kepler's law of areas to the entire universe, as
the physical, mathematical carrier for his (non-time controlled)
centripetal force. Applying his force to gravity, he assigned the
resistance he worked against at the Earth's surface (inert mass), and
called "gravity", as the 'a priori' (non-time controlled) cause of
his
centripetal force. In other words, because mass is a conserved
quantity within a least action universe, and because we have defined
the cumulative resistance of the atoms composing objects, as a force
(we feel), we have assigned the cumulative resistance of objects as
the cause of the observed order in the universe.
johnreed