Re: [epistemology 12658] Digest for epistemology@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic

[Michael Atovigba]

Johnreed,
I have a problem with the theory of symmetry. In fact I am putting up a paper on this with one of my professors.

I have observed critically from the natural phenomena, that there is unequal distribution of endowments as far as matter is concerned. For instance, check your pairs of eyes, nostrils, earlobes, legs, hands buttocks, etc and check those of other animals and other natural creations. You find out that one is always bigger or more voluminous that another in the pair.

Conclusion: nature offers a dualism of two unequal parts. Thus the theory of symmetry is man made and faulty; it is man's naive imagination, which is contrary to natural creations. This is also true of subatomic particles - e.g. two up and one down quark, or one up and two down quarks which portend inequality. So, where is the symmetry in two and one quarks? Most planets have one hemisphere bigger than the other. These instances should make scientists and mathematicians to have a rethink and stop deceiving the students with theory of symmetry. What is working in the universe is theory of inequality.

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM, <episte...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics

• Plain English Physics 101 [1 Update]

 Plain English Physics 101

johnlawrencereedjr <thejoh...@gmail.com> May 21 01:48AM -0700  

Plain English Physics 101
Published under new title
Modified Monday, May 21, 2012
johnlawrencereed jr
 
Excerpt on Ptolemy:
Where Wigner noted the "uncanny" usefulness of mathematics, I noted
that the usefulness remains, regardless of the veracity of our a
priori assumptions. As an example, first consider the Ptolemaic, Earth
centered model of the solar system. The sole quantitative connection
to the real universe in this "still useful" model is the efficient,
least action, time-space property, attendant to each of the otherwise
contrived, circular, cyclic and epi-cyclic orbits.
 
A circle is an efficient enclosure of area. Equal arc lengths will
radially enclose equal areas of the circle. This is an efficient area
enclosing property of the circle itself. It is consistent with
Kepler's law of areas which law would be redundant in the case of
perfectly circular uniform orbits. With the circle it is the
circumference arc and its radially enclosed area. With the orbit it is
the time interval of the orbit trajectory and its radially enclosed
area. The law of areas is a function involving time and space. It is a
least action function. So Ptolemy constructed several imaginary
mathematical least action consistent circles[*] upon circles to match
the time space function of the real orbits. The least action aspect of
the mathematics in describing the least action aspects of stable
universe systems, assured his success. Imagine it otherwise.
 
The Ptolemaic model shows that accurate mathematical predictions serve
us to a limited operational extent, but provide no absolute basis for
an accurate conceptual view. Viewed through the clearer lens of
hindsight here, we can see that our conceptual questions must be
framed correctly, prior to selecting the mathematical model. Must we
frame our conceptual questions any less correctly today?
 
Excerpt on Newton:
In any event, our problem did not begin with J.J. Thompson. Some 2000
years after the Ancient Greeks, Tycho Brahe's careful observations on
the behavior of celestial planetary bodies and Kepler's subsequent
careful analysis of those observations revealed that the symmetry is
in time and space. The predictable solar time-space least action
symmetry was subsequently co-opted by Isaac Newton, and used as the
carrier for our tactile sense of attraction to the planet, quantified
in terms of our least action consistent locally isolated (surface
planet) "inertial mass" and declared as the controlling cause of the
order we observe in the celestial, least action consistent universe.
This was heralded as Newton's great synthesis [*] and is so considered
even today.
 
Isaac Newton defined centripetal force in terms of his second law to
act at a distance by setting his first law planet surface object on an
imaginary circular path of motion at a uniform orbital speed. Newton
allowed his moving (planet surface like object) to impact the internal
side of the circle circumference at equidistant points to inscribe a
regular polygon. He dropped a radius to the center of the circle from
each vertex (B) of the polygon to describe any number of equal area
triangles.
 
"...but when the body is arrived at (B), suppose that a centripetal
force acts at once with a great impulse".
 
Taking the length of each triangle base to the limit (approaching
zero) the force vector [ma, mv/t, or dp/dt] at the vertex (B) is by
definition directed along the radius toward the center of the circle
as [mv^2/r][*]. Again, as with Ptolemy we have a perfect circle and
perfect motion where here the law of areas clearly falls out as an
artifact of the circle itself. Note that Newton arbitrarily inserted
mass [m] into the least action consistent equation for circular
planetary motion.
 
Newton generalized the equal areas in equal times artifact of the
perfect circle uniform motion to any curved path directed radially
around a point.
 
"Every body that moves in any curve line... described by a radius
drawn to a point... and describes about that point areas proportional
to the times is urged by a centripetal force... to that point"
 
Newton extended the property of his planet surface like orbiting
object to all orbiting celestial bodies.
 
"Every body that by a radius drawn to the center of another body.. and
describes about that center areas proportional to the times, is urged
by a force.."
 
Newton then tied the force directly to the a priori force he felt and
called gravity [mg].
 
... "For if a body by means of its gravity revolves in a circle
concentric to the earth, this gravity is the centripetal force of that
body." Newton brought his notion of gravity to the mathematics as an a
priori fundamental given.
 
In short the a priori force acted on any orbiting object as though
that object is identical to Newton's first law planet surface object
where the 2nd law force [ma] would then be proportioned to the areas
and times of orbiting celestial bodies. Where here Newton arbitrarily
inserted the locally independently derived quantity of inertial mass
[ma] into the equation proportioning the least action consistent
celestial universe to the independent locally derived planet surface
least action consistent quantity inertial mass [ma]. It has
heretofore been a mystery to many as to why so called gravitational
mass [mg] is equal to inertial mass [ma]. That is how Newton defined
it.
 
The result is that the least action universe is defined in terms of
what we feel [mg] and [ma] as least action consistent objects. How's
that for a centrist view?
 
All that was supposedly left to do to calculate the mass of planets
was to acquire a constant of proportionality [*] based on interactions
between planet surface inertial mass objects. This was eventually
determined by Henry Cavendish by measuring minute magnitudes of torque
from hanging balls that twisted a wire that could just as easily and
better be explained by unseen electromagnetic causes.
 
Excerpt on the balance scale:
Mass [m] is a magnitude of comparative resistance taken, in the
simplest case, at location on a balance scale using units of weight
[mg] where [g] continually divides out of the balance operation.
 
At any location that we place a balance scale (as long as the balance
scale is operational at that location), the function of [g] will be
immaterial to the balance scale action. Wherever we place the balance
scale the magnitude of [g] as a factor of the product weight [mg],
will be the same on each pan regardless of the mass magnitudes placed
on the pans[*].
 
The quantity [m] is derived and conserved. The quantity [g] is a
consequence of location. Therefore the balance scale compares the
resistance of atoms (matter) independent of location when we use the
objective quantitative units that are consistent with our subjective
definition of force [mg].
 
We think we have proved that a universal force [mg] that we feel and
call gravity exists as a property of inanimate matter. We believe it
exists because we feel our weight. We believe it acts on us because
we feel our weight. We define it in units of what we feel, our weight;
as the product of mass and acceleration [mg]. We postulate that
inertial mass [ma] and what we call gravitational mass [mg] are
equivalent with respect to the celestial universe because they are
equivalent with respect to what we measure, define and feel as our
weight [mg] and what we measure, define and feel as force [ma].
 
[F=ma]
[F=mg]
 
Since what we feel as gravitational Force [mg] may also be
quantitatively defined as [ma] where mass is derived and conserved
and [g] is an independent property of location, we think that the
entire universe can be explained in terms of what we feel. We think
that we have "proved" that what we feel and call "gravity" [mg], is
the cause of the celestial universe motion. So that the changing
magnitudes for [g] external to the balance scale are a consequence of
what we feel [mg] rather than what we feel [mg] being a consequence of
our location in space. To rephrase it: We think that the changing
magnitudes for [g] are a consequence of gravity (what we feel) rather
than gravity (what we feel) being a consequence of our location in
space. It should be clear that the changing magnitudes for [g] are
not a consequence of what we feel and so not a consequence of gravity.
 
If you dwell on it long enough yourself, you'll break out in
laughter.
 
Excerpt on mass: Developing a mathematical logic through the
subjective lens provided by our senses allows us to define the least
action consistent [*] universe after our own least action consistent
image, using the least action consistent mathematics. Our weight as
[mg] and a force that we feel as [ma]. Both [g] and [a] represent
acceleration. What does [m] represent? Mass? What does mass represent?
An amount of matter?
 
Since [g] is a consequence of location, when we define an object in
units of weight [mg], the quantity the balance scale is comparing is
the quantity mass [m], whereas the quantity we are comparing is the
quantity weight [mg] which changes with location. That's pretty simple
isn't it? If it hasn't caused a seed of revelation in your thinking
you might wonder why I bother to point it out.
 
When Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same rate when
dropped at the same time from the same height {*} we were all amazed.
We have remained amazed for the last 400 years. So amazed that we
have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects really
do fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m], when dropped
at the same time at the same place from the same height (discounting
air resistance).
 
We are amazed because our primary but subjective functional use for
the balance scale was and is to compare weight [mg]. Consequently we
think that the balance scale compares weight [mg]. Where the action of
the balance scale on balance equalizes the resistance of two non-
uniform (or uniform) pans of atoms, where the quantity [g] divides out
of the equation. Therefore the measure of the comparative resistance
is in mass [m] units.
 
This is not to say that we cannot use the balance scale for a large
variety of purposes. Here I have simply pointed out that what we call
gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence of location. Therefore
all objects MUST fall at the rate of [g] at a particular location. If
that does not provide a Eureka moment for you then indeed the fish are
the last to recognize water.
 
Now that we know all objects have to fall at [g] we can figure out
why. You may recognize that heretofore the question "why" has been
frowned upon by the physicist mathematician.
 
This is because we have incorporated a functioning calculational
system that has been raised to a level higher than the rational use of
words (sometimes called thinking), based on "what" we call
gravitational force [mg]. Recall that Ptolemy based his functional
mathematics on an earth centered universe. We base our present
mathematics on a force that we feel. The functional mathematics is
based on a force that we feel. How centrist is that? We take it with
us whereever we go. We function in the universe like any other least
action consistent object and define the least action consistent
universe in terms of the least action consistent units that we feel.
The resistance we encounter is equal to a force we feel. Therefore the
resistance we encounter is regarded as an equal and opposite force
mysteriously initiated by inanimate matter. Inanimate matter feels
nothing folks. The force we feel is equal to the resistance we
encounter. That resistance is caused by a uniform action on atoms.
 
As a result our conceptual thinking is dumbed down and made a slave
to the overly simplifying practically functional least action
consistent mathematics.
 
The notion of gravity will work for us practically at any location we
can occupy in the universe. However, the notion of gravity and its
attendant new age Ptolmaic mathematics in a theoretical application
constricts us and leads us into a false abyss.
 
Excerpt on the Conclusion:
We cannot overly generalize sensory quantities that operate solely
within least action parameters, beyond the specific frame within which
they directly apply. Where we can quantify a force we feel, in terms
of our inertial mass, as isolated on the planet surface and applicable
to surface planet inertial mass objects within the planet field. We
cannot generalize that notion of force, to serve as the cause of the
least action consistent behavior of the celestial bodies that
apparently generate the field. We can, as inertial objects, use it to
predict our operational and navigational requirements through the
field.
 
This contradicts Newton's justifying premise for the generalization of
local planet surface object mass to celestial bodies. That premise
consisted solely of the assumption that since it is true for the mass
of everything we can measure, it is true for the mass of every thing
everywhere that we can't measure. Pure subjective centrism.
johnreed
 
Google has trashed my capability to examine and respond to comments
and questions using its interface to groups. Half of my screen is
locked into the advertising crap they use to force one to comply with
their new changes. I tried to comply there and the entire format is
foreign and unacceptable to me. Therefore any questions or comments
should be directed to the group below. Which is also a Google
platform so I cannot be certain that it will continue to function.
Thanks.
 
If you respond to this publication take care. Try to avoid
embarrassing your descendants.
Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed


 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group epistemology.
You can post via email.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
For more options, visit this group.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.