# The Subjective Aspect of Mass March 21, 2011

2 views

### johnreed

Mar 21, 2011, 6:16:21 PM3/21/11
to
The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
Modified October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, January 11, 2011
March 21, 2011
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Section 18b
The Subjective Aspect of Mass

I have argued that with respect to the kinematics of natural stable
physical systems stability in the field requires efficient cyclic
motion. I have also argued that the mathematics describes the stable
universe well because the mathematics easily represents the efficient
(least action) properties of stable physical systems.

I have shown that Isaac Newton defined celestial centripetal force in
units proportional to planet (and moon) surface object mass, using (1)
the least action property of a circular orbit, as it applied to the
least action property of Kepler's Law of Areas[*] and (2) that the
Force we apply [F] is equal and opposite [F=mg] to the resistance we
encounter [mg] and/or [ma], at any location in space [g]. This, to
generalize his notion for a universal gravitational force based on the
resistance we work against weight [mg] and the conservation[**] of
planet surface object mass [m] (also resistance).

I have shown the connection between Kepler's laws and least action
motion, where surface planet object mass is independent of the
celestial frame. For example, increasing the orbit speed of a body by
a factor of [sqrt 2] will cause any orbiting body to escape its orbit,
regardless of the mass of the body and the mass of the planet.
Further, we cannot choose the orbit speed [s/t] independent of the
radius of the orbit [r], where we can choose the orbit speed [s/t]
largely independent of the mass of the orbiting body. (See Section 4,
this series of posts.).

I have noted the example [.5mv^2] and [mv], and [pir^2] and [2pir]. In
the calculus, classical energy and classical momentum are analogous to
the efficient relationship exhibited by the Euclidean circle area and
its boundary. Further, [4/3pir^3] and [4pir^2] for the volume of a
sphere and its surface area also obey the differential-integral rule.
This is perfectly general across least action physical and
mathematical relationships. We should expect there to be a retained
consistent mathematical relationship that speaks to least action
efficient systems and their properties across the board.

Not necessarily to mass across the board, since again, terrestrial
(surface planet object) mass is independent of the celestial frame,
ie. all objects freefall, orbit and escape from a given planet and/or
moon at the same rate, regardless of mass (depending objectively only
on least action consistent, distance and time units, and
“subjectively” on the Force [F] we, as “living” planet surface objects
(composed of atoms), ”feel”, initiate, apply and measure, when we act
on resistance [m].

In the sub-atomic frame, mass [m] resistance is not conserved. The
mass of an electron and proton taken separately is not the same as the
mass of the electron and proton joined as an element. As a consequence
in part, the notion of mass as a component of Force [F] from the
equation [F=mg] and [F=ma] was modified. Relativistic mass [m] was
defined in the expression [F={mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)}].

In order to maintain mass invariance with respect to our notion of
Force mass became the expression contained in the curly brackets { }
of the expression [F=d/dt {mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)}]. This to say that
Force [F] is the derivative with respect to time of the momentum of
the object. We continue to define mass (as a scalar component of
Force) here in terms of momentum: where momentum can only be verified
with respect to planet surface objects and where mass is independent
of the celestial frame.

With no further speculation here: note that our response [F] to planet
surface object resistance [mg] is a Force [F] that is felt and
initiated by us.

The question is: should we continue to speculate that the Force [F] we
feel in response to a resistance we encounter measured in conserved
units of that resistance [m] as weight [mg], is the force that is
attracting matter to the planet?

Does the fact that the Force [F] we apply and think is acting on us is
always equal and opposite to our weight [mg] mean that the Force [F]
of attraction from the planet is acting on what we think we feel mass
[m] as the material part of our weight in [mg]? Our mass does not
change [g] changes. Since mass does not change might mass represent
the conserved resistance of a finite amount of matter? The conserved
resistance of say, a specific number and type of atom(s)?

Can we generalize a Force [F] we apply to a resistance [m] as equal
and opposite to [mg] to the entire least action consistent, inanimate,
celestial universe because we feel the Force [F] we apply to the
resistance [m] at any location in space [g] where the scalar component
[m] of the resistance [mg] is conserved independently terrestrially
and in celestial planet and moon surface matter interactions?

The resistance of a planet surface object's mass as [mg] and [ma] is
equivalent to a Force [F] we, as living surface planet inertial
objects apply, measure, and feel, at any location in space by
definition [F=mg]. We have defined the resistance we act on [mg] as
equal and opposite to a Force [F] we apply. Does applying effort to
lift something we can quantify in units as [mg] mean that the planet
attractor unequivocally acts on and/or is generated by [mg]?

It’s easy to grasp the fact that each of our individual and varied
weights [mg] are equal and opposite to a Force [F] we each feel
[F=mg]. Calling the Force [F] we each feel “gravity” and generalizing
it as equal and opposite to the Force the planet exerts [Mg1] on us
[Mg1=mg] … is convenient, largely inconsequential and wholly
subjective.

Where in fact, if the planet attractor acts uniformly on our atoms, we
each work against the resistance of our atoms [m], quantified for any
location in space as [mg], which we can measure on the balance scale

Moreover if the attraction acted on [m] or [mg] an increase in [m]
would cause an increased attraction. Where in fact when we increase
[m] our weight [mg] increases and we hold the planet attractor Force
[F] conveniently equivalent to the increase we feel. Where the equal
and opposite condition is maintained by the increase in the number of
atoms comprising the mass and our additional applied effort on the
resistance.

To rephrase the question: Can we proportionally generalize mass (as a
conserved resistive amount of matter measured at the terrestrial or
planet and moon surface classical frame), to the celestial (moon to
planet, planet to sun) frame, merely based on least action consistent,
planet surface object, distance and time units, where planet surface
object mass [m] is significant with respect to a resistance [mg] we as
planet surface objects feel, but is nonetheless independent with
respect to the celestial frame. Mass [m] does not change [g] changes.

If the planet were alive the Force it could feel would be the Force
exerted by the smaller object. Just like a baseball flying through
the air will strike your head with a Force [ma]. So too will a
I don’t want to abandon but to expand on, the tools and concepts we
use in our physical science. The functional celestial vector is a
consequence of [1] the least action consistent stable universe motion,
and [2] the independence of planet surface object mass with respect to
that motion, and [3] the least action consistent mathematics.

The planet and moon surface object conserved "mass in motion" vector
is also a consequence of the least action consistent celestial motion
because the planet attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. In either
case, the celestial or the planet surface object case, planet surface
object mass is independent with respect to the planet and celestial
attractor action. Since we are planet surface objects our mass is
independent with respect to the planet and celestial attractor
action. The planet attractor is not acting on our mass. . We do not
work against the resistance of the planet [Mg]. We work against the
attraction of the planet. That attraction is super electromagnetic
acting on all atoms uniformly.

However, Planet surface object mass [m] is not independent with
respect to a Force [F] that we, as living planet surface objects apply
and can measure and feel. We can quantitatively define the resistance
we act on as equal and opposite to a Force we feel [F = mg]. This
works well because we are planet surface objects and mass [m] is
emergent in the planet attractor field that acts uniformly on all
atoms. Our applied effort [F] can be quantized against the conserved
resistance [m] we feel at any location in space as [mg]..

Again, in a least action consistent stable universe, where planet
surface object mass [m] is independent of the celestial frame, can we
proportionally generalize planet surface object mass [m] to celestial,
planet, moon and star masses [M], based solely on common cross frame
least action characteristics of their respective motions? Is this
justified beyond its subjective and pragmatic functionality? The
question appears to rest on whether or not it can be shown that the
balance scale compares the resistance of atoms in units of mass [m],
which we interpret in terms of Force [F] as weight [mg].

A thought experiment:
Consider a pure, one isotope element. On a balance scale, imagine that
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 on a
distance from centers of various densities.

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, it seems clear that we feel (work against) at location [g],
the cumulative resistance (mass [m]) of the number of atoms in the
pure object pan at that location. The number of atoms, like the mass,
is a function of density. This density has historically been seen as a
function of gravitational Force [F], the Force we apply and
(supposedly) work against.

I have shown that mass [m] represents the cumulative resistance of
planet surface atoms, as measured on the balance scale. Planet and
moon surface object mass [m] represents the conserved cumulative
resistance of uniformly acted upon atoms. We define this resistance in
mass units. The action of the balance scale, on balance, speaks to the
uniform attractive action on the contents of each pan. The balance
scale does not tell us what kind of attractive action is acting on the
pan. We can look at it subjectively as though it is a uniform
attraction on mass [m] (as Newton did with gravity), or a uniform
attraction on atoms (where Newton did not require any greater
distinction than mass [m]). In either view, mass units are conserved.
Question: What is it about mass [m] that allows this?

Answer: The planet attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. Mass [m] is
the unit of measure of the conserved, emergent, cumulative resistance
of a number of atoms.

The uniform attraction on atoms creates a field that is equivalent to
an unencumbered field with respect to mass [m]. Each atom in the pure
object pan is uniformly acted upon by the planet attractor. If each
atom was not acted upon uniformly by the planet attractor, regardless
of the atom's mass, we would not be able to acquire a balance of mass
[m] using the balance scale. Nor could we isolate mass [m] in impact
collisions. All we could acquire is a balance of weight [w], in the
event we could even exist.

All we need do is duplicate the time space parameters to place any of
our planet and moon surface objects into semi-permanent orbits. The
Force [F] we apply to do this is on the cumulative resistance of the
atoms [m] composing the object, at any location in space [g] . Setting
the conserved and emergent cumulative resistance [m] of an orbiting
say, baseball's atoms, equal and opposite to the cumulative resistance
[M] of the atoms composing say, the planet Earth, is an erroneous and
occult, but functional indulgence, arising from the successful
prediction of "least action" time and space parameters in conjunction
with the fact that planet surface object mass [m] is independent of
the celestial frame.

This provides us erroneous validation for the faulty premise put
forward by Isaac Newton that: "Since it is true (the proportional
conservation of planet surface object mass [m]) for all matter we can
measure, it is true for all matter whatsoever." Paraphrased. With
circumspect thought this is simply not warranted.

I conclude that the celestial order we observe is not a universal
consequence of conserved planet and moon surface object mass [m]
resistance (what we as planet and moon surface living inertial
objects, apply, measure and feel as Force [F]).
I also conclude that black holes are a non-existent fantasy based on
our present subjective, quantitative but intellectually primitive
gravitational beliefs. The supposed fact that we have "discovered"
black holes in distant space notwithstanding. Rather, we see what we
expect to see.

The less we know for certain, the more we seem to think we know, and
as a result of obscure observations, the more we try to extend our
infirm knowledge to the rest of the universe, in the likeness of
ourselves. The fact that we begin and end causes us to assume that all
things begin and end. The rarest of supporting observations provide us
"evidentiary proof" for our subjective notions. Which notions insure
that we continue in our intellectually restricted theoretical mode.

Consequently I engaged in an extended search for a way to show that
the planet attractor acted on atoms and not on mass [m]. After some
12-15 years of unsupported and discouraged research on this, I had
come to the tentative conclusion that we cannot tell the difference,
so either approach is functional. Clearly a sad place to leave it
after all the time invested.

Then one day the connection between Avogadro, the balance scale and
the periodic table reminded me that I can determine a specific number
of atoms if I have the mass of a pure element. So there is a direct
conversion for planet surface object mass as resistance, to planet
surface object mass as a number of atoms.

Therefore, I say, that in the case of pure compounds or elements
[F=mg] can be written as [F=nNmg], where [n] represents the number of
moles, [N] represents Avogadro’s number, and [mg] represents the
relative atomic weight of a single atom of the element.

In so far as the above is correct, then on any planet or moon surface,
the force we feel, apply and measure [F], can be set precisely
equivalent (pretty near) in objective terms, to a “number” of element
specific atoms, again, provided we are weighing pure compounds or
elements.

A number of element specific atoms represent an “amount of matter” in
a more objective conceptual (and precisely quantitative) manner, than
our planet and moon surface object, quantitative but "subjective", and
therefore "centrist" notion of “resistance”, as "an amount of
matter" [m].

Although in cases other than pure elements or compounds, the mass of
the object alone will not provide us a means to calculate the number
of atoms in the object, the principle itself should generalize to all
experimental physical analysis of samples of planet and moon surface
matter. A prediction.

It follows then that since conserved planet and moon surface object
mass can be set equivalent to the quantitative measure of the
cumulative resistance of a planet surface, inertial object's atoms
(that we measure and feel), and since we are living planet surface
inertial objects, then what we measure and feel and call gravitational
force, is the accelerated, conserved, cumulative resistance of a
planet (or moon) surface inertial object's atoms. This includes the
atoms that make up our bodies and the atoms in the bowling ball (etc.)
that we lift.

Our notion that a universal force (that we quantitatively measure in
conserved, planet surface object mass units in motion, that we as
living planet surface inertial objects initiate, apply, and/or, feel)
is acting on conserved planet and moon surface mass, is subjectively
functional (mass is not independent of the force that we feel) but
nonetheless false. We initiate, apply and feel "the so called
gravitational force". The attraction is on atoms.

Therefore I submit that what we call gravity is a super form of
electro magnetism that acts on all atoms, not just those “special
case” atoms that are internally and externally optimally alligned.

Endnote
[1] Where mass is the conserved cumulative resistance of planet and
moon surface object atoms and is conserved independently 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 in fact, and 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 on time-space parameters where the emergent conserved
independent cumulative resistance of 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). This where planet surface object mass is
independent of the celestial frame.
[2] Historically the idea for the conservation of mass included its
mathematical invariance within its operation in the classical frame
and the attendant notion that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
So mass and matter were initially held as nearly synonymous in meaning
due to the fogginess surrounding the connecting thread. The balance
scale was and still is thought to represent a measure of gravitational
Force [F], or weight [mg].
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. The many sub-sections and work prior to 2007 has
not been included. I will develop it further as I have time and gain
familiarity with the venue.

Meanwhile it is available for public review to all, and open to
criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. No
restrictions or requirements to join.

### Michael J. Strickland

Aug 24, 2016, 5:20:49 AM8/24/16
to
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:16:21 -0700 (PDT), johnreed
<thejoh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
>Modified October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, January 11, 2011
>March 21, 2011
>John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
>Section 18b
>The Subjective Aspect of Mass
>
>I have argued that with respect to the kinematics of natural stable
>physical systems stability in the field requires efficient cyclic
>motion.

Is a static system (without motion (cyclic or otherwise) non-stable?

>I have also argued that the mathematics describes the stable
>universe well because the mathematics easily represents the efficient
>(least action) properties of stable physical systems.
>
>I have shown that Isaac Newton defined celestial centripetal force in
>units proportional to planet (and moon) surface object mass, using (1)
>the least action property of a circular orbit, as it applied to the
>least action property of Kepler's Law of Areas[*] and (2) that the
>Force we apply [F] is equal and opposite [F=mg] to the resistance we
>encounter [mg] and/or [ma], at any location in space [g]. This, to
>generalize his notion for a universal gravitational force based on the
>resistance we work against weight [mg] and the conservation[**] of
>planet surface object mass [m] (also resistance).
>
>I have shown the connection between Kepler's laws and least action
>motion, where surface planet object mass is independent of the
>celestial frame.

Is there a non-object mass?

What precisely is a "surface planet object mass"? Do you mean a
planet's mass? If that's what you mean, please de-jargonize before
expecting me to read further - lol.

Why would anyone expect a mass ("surface planet object mass") to be
dependent on a "celestial frame" (positions of stars?).

...
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------