10-18-2011 IS GRAVITY THE UNIFORM ATTRACTION OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS RESULTING IN THE COMPARATIVE CUMULATIVE RESISTANCE OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS WE MEASURE ON THE BALANCE SCALE AND CALL MASS?

[johnlawrencereedjr]

IS GRAVITY THE UNIFORM ATTRACTION OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS ALLOWING THE
COMPARATIVE CUMULATIVE RESISTANCE OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS WE MEASURE ON
THE BALANCE SCALE AND CALL MASS?

by

John Lawrence Reed Jr

In response to a question asked by Robert Allan

A Section on the Subjects of Gravity, Light, Classical, Quantum and
Relativistic Physics

John Reed Studies

Saturday, October 01, 2011

Robert Allan> What is truth? I think that it's fair to say that truth
is what can be proved and the rest is just...conjecture?

johnreed> In brief: It appears that if we can envisage it as the truth
and the closer we come to believing it is the truth; the greater the
likelihood that we are wrong. This is not an iron clad rule, but
consider: We think we have proved that a universal force that we 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 and feel as our weight [mg] and force [ma].

So developing 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. Our weight as [mg] and a force that we
feel as [ma]. Both [g] and [a] represent acceleration [1]. What does
[m] represent? Mass? What does mass represent? An amount of matter?

Note:
Where we place a balance scale is immaterial to the function of the
balance scale. Wherever we place it the magnitude of [g] as a factor
of the product [mg] weight, will be the same on each pan regardless of
the mass magnitudes placed on the pans [2]. So when we define an
object in units of weight [mg], the only quantity we are comparing on
the balance scale is the quantity of mass [m], since [g] is a
consequence of location. That's pretty simple isn't it? So you might
wonder why I bother to point it out.

Since what is called gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence
of location (and not a consequence of mass [m]) all objects MUST fall
at the rate of [g]. Further, if [g] was not a consequence of location
then mass [m] and [g] acceleration could not be combined into the
product called weight [mg]. In such a case the balance scale would
only give us weight as [w], if we ever developed.

We used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000 years and for
6000 years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter
objects. We are real quick aren't we? And apparently there are many
uneducated people who still believe that heavier objects fall faster
than light objects. Undoubtably there are still persons who think the
world is flat.

So when Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same rate when
dropped at the same time from the same height we were amazed and we
have remained amazed for 450 years. So amazed that we have engaged in
extensive research to verify that all objects fall at the same rate,
independent of their mass [m] when dropped at the same time at the
same place from the same height (in a vacuum).

We are amazed because our functional use for the balance scale was and
is to compare weight [mg]. Weight [mg] is specific to location and
specific to what we feel [weight mg] at that location. Weight, [mg],
and what we feel vary according to a location in space. Given any mass
[m] all three, weight, [mg] and what we feel, depend on the magnitude
of [g]. We can change locations and our mass [m] remains unchanged but
our weight [mg] and what we feel vary according to a location in
space. Again its pretty simple stuff. High school physics. So why do
I continue to discuss it? I discuss it because we have defined the
universe in terms of weight [mg], a force that we feel.

We think that the force we feel is proportional everywhere in the
universe (in terms of mass, distance and time), to the magnitudes we
feel and measure on the surface of planets and moons. We calculate a
constant of proportionality [G] [3] that we apply to planets, moons
and stars, by analyzing the least action consistent behavior of planet
surface object mass, where planet surface object mass is emergent and
conserved independent of the least action consistent behavior of
planets, moons and stars [4].

We say that a force we feel as weight [mg] is universally generated by
inanimate and animate matter as an innate property of matter itself.
I say this is false. The force we feel is generated by us (our effort)
and we apply it to inanimate matter and/or feel it through physically
interacting with inanimate and animate matter. The force we feel does
not act at a distance. The force we feel [mg] does depend on our
location in space. So "something" acts at a distance.

All atoms fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Therefore I conclude that
the planet attractor acts uniformly on each atom (Einstein proposed a
uniform gravitational field). This is the ‘level’ playing field we are
born in and the field that contains the atoms from which we are built.

Given the level playing field that acts on all atoms 'uniformly'; we
feel the cumulative 'non'-uniform resistance of those atoms when we
'work' against the direction the field of non-uniform atoms is
uniformly pulled. When we 'travel' in the direction the field
uniformly pulls on our atoms, we experience free fall, or no
resistance other than air resistance.

The 'universal ' attractive action is uniform on the non-uniform atoms
that make up animate and inanimate matter. This is why all atoms fall
at the same rate in a vacuum. The pull on each is uniform. This is
why we can isolate mass on the balance scale. The uniform pull on the
non-uniform atoms allows the measure of the comparative resistance in
each pan. We call this conserved quantity mass.

The uniform pull on non-uniform atoms allows us to feel variance in
the resistance of the non-uniform atoms we work against. An object we
lift offers its weight [mg] as resistance to our effort. It offers no
resistance to the pull of the planet. It offers resistance to the
force we apply. We apply the force we define and measure as [mg].

Gravitational force is a legacy concept based solely on what we feel
[mg]; our weight [mg], and the quantitative least action consistent
mathematical convenience of matter's resistance [mg] to our effort
[mg]. Mass is conserved on the balance scale and [g] is a function of
location. Mass is also conserved in impact experiments because it is
independent of the attraction by the planet. This attraction is
uniform on non-uniform atoms.

Nothing pulls on us. The pull is uniform on our atoms which we do not
feel during freefall. We feel our total weight when we are in contact
with the planet; or when we accelerate away from the planet. We feel
the resistance of our non-uniform atoms when we work in opposition to
the direction the planet uniformly pulls on our non-uniform atoms. We
feel the resistance of our non-uniform atoms when we act in opposition
to a state of rest or in opposition to a state of constant motion. In
all cases of inertial mass [ma] and gravitational mass [mg] the force
we feel is the resistance of non-uniform atoms in response to our
effort. We act on this non-uniform resistance and we feel an equal and
opposite force because our subjective effort is equal and opposite to
the objective resistance we act on. We have defined it that way.
[F=mg] and [F=ma].

The force we apply when we lift an object at any location, will
always be equal to the weight of the object's atoms that resist the
force we apply at that location. The quantity that acts on the atoms
is [g]. We generate the force. Matter provides the resistance we must
counter. We feel and generate the force. It begins and ends in our
body and effort. We lift objects. Objects can strike us. [F=mg] and/
or [F=ma]. This does not imply that mass generates a universal
gravitational force that we feel at a distance.

We have attributed this phenomenon to Newton's 3rd law. The "equal and
opposite" law because the subjective force we generate is equal and
opposite to the objective resistance of the non-uniform atoms we work
against.

We have defined the universe through the subjective lens of our own
image. Mass was such a convenient emergent quantity that we required
no further analysis on precisely what mass represents. We could
navigate the planet frame and the theoretical universe in terms of our
notion of force. Our notion of force consists of the product of the
conserved classical quantity mass [m] and the quantity [g] which is an
independent consequence of a location in classical celestial space.
The quantities mass [m], gravitational acceleration [g] and
acceleration [a] and their products [ma] and [mg] operate
independently and consistent with least action motion.

There is nothing universal about the force we feel [mg] beyond the
conserved resistance of atoms [m] and the location in space [g] that
accompanies that resistance. I have pointed out that these two least
action consistent factors [m] and [g] are wholly independent of one
another. Even so all of our reputable science institutions continue to
endorse gravity as a fundamental fact [5].

The argument I put forward can seamlessly mesh with the current long
running paradigm. The least action consistent use of the least action
consistent mathematics on a least action consistent universe requires
a strict use of precise language to describe the quantities we examine
in our convenient superficial least action consistent mathematical
way.

For example although Mass [m] does represent an amount of matter as
the comparative resistance of a number of non-uniform and uniform
atoms, it is presently defined as a comparative resistance of 'blobs'
of matter. Bodies, particles, objects and/or blobs are all equally
non-specific. Generally we compare one blob to another blob on the
balance scale. These non-specific blobs of mass [m] can be
appropriated to apply in any frame because all natural frames are
least action consistent.

However I have defined mass as the comparative resistance of non-
uniform (and uniform) atoms in response to and as a consequence of a
uniform attraction on all atoms. We get close to this when we measure
amounts of atoms or molecules in moles as we optimize our chemical
reactions. The relative atomic weight of an atom expressed in grams
represents one mole of that element. One mole of an element represents
a specific number of atoms. That number is Avogadro's Number
6.0221415 × 10^23.

That number represents the number of atoms in a gram atom or the gram
atomic weight of an atom. Straight from the Periodic Table we have the
gram atomic weight of each element that is equivalent to the weight of
6.0221415 x 10^23 atoms of that element. That number of atoms is 1
mole of an element and the chemical numerical notation references
moles of atoms.

To keep it simple the gram atomic weight of Hydrogen can be
represented roughly as 1. Oxygen then, also roughly is 16. So we have
2 gram atoms of hydrogen and one gram atom of Oxygen. Each gram atom
is equivalent to 6.0221415 x 10^23 atoms of the element. After they
are combined using units of weight [mg] to make water, each molecule
of water consists of 6.0221415 x 10^23 water atoms. So Avogadro's
Number in this case is a constant of proportionality for the atomic
chemical formulation of the elemental compounds when represented in
units that we use as weight [mg].

The atomic weight of an element is expressed in gram atoms or moles.
The Periodic Chart arranges the elements in Mass units that represent
a specific number of atoms for each element. This is Avogadro's
number. So when we determine that water has two hydrogen atoms and
one oxygen atom and this is expressed in mass units that represent a
precise number of atoms (moles) our Periodic Table represents the
relative weight of each element in units that define the number of
atoms as a unit multiple of Avogadro's number.

The constant objective factor here is a number of atoms. Not the
subjective resistance (that depends on location) of a number of atoms.
Mass is a convenient means by which we can represent the resistance of
a number of uniform and non-uniform atoms acted upon uniformly by the
planet attractor. Consequently our effort we call force [mg] cannot be
generalized to an effort by the planet. Inanimate objects exert no
effort and feel no force.

The planet attractor acts uniformly on atoms. All atoms fall at the
same rate. We lift or work against the cumulative sum of the non-
uniform resistance of the atoms in an object. The planet attractor
pulls uniformly on the object's non-uniform atoms and on our non-
uniform atoms as we lift the object. To assign the force we feel and
generate to inanimate object resistance is simple error.

The final piece of this puzzle came from the recognition that I could
show that gravity acts on atoms using the principle that is the basis
for the Periodic Table. It took me years to put it together and it was
right in front of me all along. 6450 years is still a long, long time
in terms of the life span we are given.

If you are perplexed and think that this is not what you were taught
in school, you are correct. This is what I have learned and what I am
attempting to explain. I am redefining gravitational force as a force
we feel as living objects in response to resistance. We act on
resistance and we feel the force we generate. The cause of that
resistance is undoubtedly universal, but it does not manifest in the
universe as the force we call gravity. It is the planet attractor's
uniform action on non-uniform atoms. The uniform action on non-uniform
atoms by the planet attractor is why all atoms fall at the same rate.
The atoms have no resistance falling in a vacuum. We feel the
resistance we call force and weight when we interact with matter on
the playing field equalized by the uniform attractive action on all
atoms. We can quantify this resistance in units as a product of mass
and acceleration [ma] and/or [mg]. I will further explain why this
works when I continue. Although any skilled physicist can take it from
here.

My ideas can exist side by side with the present paradigm and answer
more problem questions while operating wholly consistent with the
simplistic use of the least action consistent mathematical common
properties shared by least action consistent systems across the
board.

Other alternative causal ideas for gravity are in some way related to
Einstein's notion of relative to perception motion extended to a
uniform gravitational field that acquires uniformity by treating the
planet as expanding to meet stationary objects and justifying it by
noting that we cannot determine if we are moving or if what we observe
is doing the moving.

Like what we observe influences the objective behavior of the
universe. The original seed for this idea probably occurred when
Einstein as a boy rode on a train and noticed that he could not tell
if his car was moving or the one outside his window was moving. And
then he rode on a light beam.

I think the Repuglicans called California Governor Jerry Brown
"Moonbeam". But then the repuglicans have destroyed this nation again
so anyone they find fault with is highly recommended..

johnreed, Thursday, October 18, 2011

Modified Friday, September 23, 2011,
Monday, September 26, 2011,
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Saturday, 08 October, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011

End Notes:
[1] The simplest case of acceleration can be expressed as a change of
speed over time. Take the most familiar US definition for speed as
miles per hour or [m/h]. This is [distance/time] or [d/t]. [Speed]
over [time] then becomes [d/t]/[t] which is [d/t^2.
[2] This is true except in theoretical cases where extreme magnitudes
that exist in some mathematical theories are projected to vary greatly
in very short distances.
[3] A constant of proportionality in its simplest representation
would say be 2 when the proportions are 4/2, 6/3, 18/9 etc. In the
case of the planet orbits Kepler learned that the period of each
planet orbit and the cube of the orbit radius can be expressed as T^2/
r^3 = K. Here K is the constant of proportionality.
[4] Where mass is the conserved cumulative resistance of non-uniform
planet and moon surface atoms and is conserved independent of the
celestial least action motion: Recall that we have spin angular
momentum and linear momentum from Newton’s first law. We don’t have
orbital angular momentum from that law. We acquire orbital angular
momentum from Newton’s mathematical derivation for centripetal force
where he used a perfect circle and perfect motion to argue for
centripetal acceleration.
The spinning perfect circle angular velocity is an artifact of the
uniformly spinning circle itself. The angular velocity of a spinning
disk, sphere, or solid object, is an artifact of the uniformly
spinning disk, sphere, or solid. So we have least action consistent
single object spin angular momentum as an artifact of the spinning
perfect circle angular velocity.
Newton then used the least action consistent angular velocity of
Kepler’s empirical time controlled law of areas for 2 body planet
orbital motion, to mathematically carry his perfectly circular 2 body
uniform motion, spin angular momentum analog, to the planet’s non-
uniform 2 body orbital motion.
It’s based solely on time-space parameters where the emergent
conserved cumulative resistance of non-uniform planet and moon surface
atoms is either designated as the cause of the least action consistent
celestial motion (Newton’s gravity), or as the consequence of the
least action consistent motion, as space-time curvature (Albert
Einstein and peers).
[5] I had something to point out here but in keeping with my age it
has slipped my mind for the moment.
johnreed

I have made it easier to reference my supporting work by creating a
Google Science and Technology Group titled: "The Least Action
Consistent Universe and the Mathematics". Currently it contains
Sections 1 through 9 for reference. The many sub-sections and work
prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as I
have the time and gain familiarity with the venue. Meanwhile my more
recent work is available for public review to all, and open to
criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. The
latter is a condition established by Google and newsgroups in general.
I provide information. I seek no recruits. However, there are no
restrictions or requirements to join.

Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed

If you respond to this post from a newsgroup other than the above,
please send a copy to Randa...@yahoo.com, if you want a timely
response. Thanks. johnreed Sunday, 25 September, 2011