A Message to Posterity
7 views
Skip to first unread message
thejohnlreed
Feb 12, 2012, 5:18:19 AM2/12/12
to The Least Action Consistent Universe and the Mathematics
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 [mg]; 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].
So what we feel as Force [ma] may also be defined as [mg] so the
entire universe can be explained in terms of what we feel. If you
dwell on it long enough you'll break out in laughter.
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 [1]. What does [m]
represent? Mass? What does mass represent? An amount of matter?
Note:
Any location that we place a balance scale as long as the balance
scale is operational at that location, is immaterial to the function
of the balance scale. Wherever we place it 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 [2]. So [g] is a
consequence of location. 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 revelation in
your thinking you might wonder why I bother to point it out. Here I
have pointed out that what we call gravitational acceleration [g] is a
consequence of location. Therefore all objects MUST fall at the rate
of [g]. If that does not provide a Eureka moment for you then indeed
the fish are the last to recognize water.
I point it out in part because 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. When it is clear that all
objects fall at the rate of [g].
Nonetheless when Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same
rate when dropped at the same time from the same height {#} we were
amazed. Astonishingly 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]. Where the action of the balance scale on
balance equalizes the comparative resistance of two uniform and/or non-
uniform pans of atoms. It is still inexplicable to us and we have
incorporated a functioning calculational system which dumbs down our
thinking and makes us mental slaves to the overly simplifying least
action consistent mathematics.
The quantity [g] is not a consequence of the independently conserved
planet surface object resistance that we measure on the balance scale
and call mass [m].
Further, if [g] was not a consequence of location then mass [m] and
[g] acceleration could not be independent factors of the product
called weight [mg]. In such a case we would have no quantity called
mass [m] as the balance scale, on balance, would only give us weight
as [w]. We could say [w1] units of [x] = [w1] units of [y]. More
significant is the fact that in such a case we would not be here to
recognize it. You will have to think about this for now, but 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 [mg],
depend on the magnitude of [g] at the location we occupy. We can
change locations and our mass [m] remains unchanged but our weight
[mg] and what we feel [mg] vary according to a location in space.
Again its pretty simple stuff. High school physics. Do you still
wonder why I continue to discuss it? I discuss it because we have
defined the universe in terms of weight [mg], consistent with a
force that we feel [F=mg]. This Force changes with location consistent
with the arithmetic function of [1/r^2] where [r] is the distance
between two object centers.
We think that the force we feel is proportional everywhere in the
universe (with respect to mass, distance and time), to the magnitudes
we feel and measure on the surface and the surrounding space of
planets and moons. We calculate a constant of proportionality [G] [#]
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 [#]. The
centers of mass describe the trajectories of orbiting objects.
In sum we say that a force we feel and define as weight [mg], is
universally generated by inanimate and animate matter as an innate
property of matter itself. Where I have shown with only a balance
scale that this is clearly false. In the product [mg], [m] is
conserved and independent of [g] which depends on location.
Consequently, 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 is
implemented by us as our effort and is local. It does not act at a
distance. The force we feel and call gravity [F] set equivalent to
[mg] a variable resistance we act on; does depend on our location in
space. We have defined the Force we feel as the cause of the inverse
square property of least action consistent motion.
I am reminded of a passage by Alduous Huxley after smoking Hemp. He
looked at the front of his automobile and it struck him that we have
created the automobile after our own image. That turned out to be
noteworthy but minor.
So "something" acts at a distance. That "something" is the cause of
[g].
Mass [m] represents the conserved property of resistance we act on
which is the product [mg].
o0o
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 [g] is uniform on the non-uniform
atoms that make up animate and inanimate matter. The uniform action
varies not according to any property of mass [m] but according to the
property of [g] which varies with location and increases uniformly
with time. This is why all atoms fall at the same rate in a vacuum.
The pull on each is uniform in space and increases uniformly in time.
This is why we can isolate mass on the balance scale. The uniform pull
on the non-uniform atoms allows the quantitative measure of the
comparative resistance in each pan on balance. We call this emergent
conserved quantity of comparative resistance mass. This is also why
Einstein's reduction of the universe to a space-time continuum works.
Mass does not enter into anything but our interpretation based on the
Force we feel and the resistance [mg] we act on.
The uniform pull on non-uniform and uniform atoms allows us to feel
variance in the resistance of the non-uniform atoms we work against.
An object we lift offers its 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 [F] that we feel and measure as
equivalent to the quantity we have defined as weight [mg].
Gravitational force is a legacy concept based on what we feel [F], set
equivalent to the resistance we encounter, in units that are
mathematically consistent with the least action independent
description that results from matter's resistance to our effort as
[F=mg] and [F=ma].
Mass is conserved on the balance scale because [g] is a function of
location and the action on each pan is the same empty or filled..
Mass [m] is also conserved in impact experiments because mass [m] is
independent of the attraction by the planet. This attraction is
uniform on non-uniform and uniform atoms and is not an attraction on
mass [m].
Nothing pulls on us. Nonetheless we aquire our localized sense of
"self" from the uniform pull on our non-uniform atoms, which we do not
feel during freefall [#]. We feel what we call our weight (our sense
of self) 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 so called gravitational mass
[mg] the force we feel is the resistance of non-uniform atoms in
response to our effort (self). We act on this non-uniform resistance
of atoms and define it uniformly relative to our effort as [mg]. We
feel an equal and opposite force [F] because our subjective effort
(self) is equal and opposite to the objective non-uniform atom
resistance we act on. We have defined the non-uniform atom resistance
we act on uniformly as [F=mg] and [F=ma]. There is a property of atoms
that allows mass conservation.
o0o
We set the 'uniform' force we feel [F] = [Mm/r^2] which makes the so
called gravitational force between 2 objects [M] and [m] equal to the
product [Mm] divided by the square of the distance between the two
object centers. Since we have defined the force [F] that we feel
equivalent to the independent least action consistent product [mg] we
can now set [mg] = [Mm/r^2] and mathematically define the celestial
universe motion by including a constant of proportionality that agrees
with our local description [F=mg]. So that we can set [mg] = [GMm/
r^2].
Since we are a manifestation of [m] defining the force we feel in
units that represent least action consistent equations and since all
natural motion in the universe is least action consistent motion we
have allowed the least action consistent mathematics to prove our
subjective fantasies.
So [g]=[GM/r^2]. All we apparently need now is a magnitude for [G]
and we think we can calculate the mass [M] since the magnitude for [g]
is based on a location in space here [r] it will be a function of a
location in space celestially as [r]. Since [m] is conserved on the
planet surface and [g] is a funtion of location Newton generalized the
resistance [mg] set equal to the force [F] we feel and equivalent to
[mg] to the entire universe. This will work for us everywhere in the
negotiable universe because we have defined the universe we can
negotiate in terms consistent with our own image. It is of note that
when Newton presented his so called universal law of gravitation [F] =
[GMm/r^2] he had no magnitude for [G]. That determination was left to
Henry Cavendish to calculate by observing the miniscule torque between
two suspended balls.
Now consider that the force we apply when we lift an object at any
location in the universe, will always be equal to the 'weight' of the
object's atoms that resist the force we apply at that location.
Consequently the magnitude of [M] will be based on our projections for
mass magnitudes that operate independent of the controlling magnitude
based on location [g], and change according to a magnitude we feel.
The quantity acting on the atoms is measured as [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]. We have
attributed this phenomenon to Newton's 3rd law. The "equal and
opposite" law because the subjective force we generate can be
mathematically defined as equal and opposite to the objective
resistance of the non-uniform atoms we work against [#]. We can apply
[mg] to the celestial least action consistent motion because mass is
emergent conserved and independent of that motion (as seen on the
balance scale) and because [g] is a property of a location in space
(as seen on the balance scale). To be direct; none of this implies
that mass generates a universal gravitational force that we feel at a
distance. It argues against such subjectivity.
We have defined the universe through the subjective lens of our own
image. Mass was and is such a convenient emergent quantity that we
required no further analysis on precisely what mass represents. We
can 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 [F] and set
equinalent to [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 least action consistent
mass [m] can be appropriated to apply in any frame because all natural
frames are least action consistent.
Let us observe that mass is the comparative uniform resistance of non-
uniform and/or uniform atoms. Let us now examine the accepted
proposition that the atoms composing our bodies (self) are equal and
opposite to the resistance of the atoms composing the planet. The
force we feel [F] is equal and opposite to the resistance of the
planet. That means that the balance scale will balance our atoms when
the planet's atoms are placed in the other pan. That is comical.
Whereas 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.
o0o
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 proportionally
references moles of atoms. This number is consistent with grams but
would be consistent with any other unit of resistance.
To try keeping 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 for water H2O.
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 H2O, 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 (moles) that we measure 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
near 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, at any location in the
universe. Note that we are dealing with a number of atoms and use the
variable weight [mg] which applies here at any location in space. In
other words the resistance of the atoms change according to location
but the number of atoms is invariant with respect to location.
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 [F] set
equivalent to [mg] cannot be generalized to an effort by the planet.
Inanimate objects exert no effort and feel no force. And Force [F] as
we have defined it is based on what we feel anywhere.
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 consolidating 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.
o0o
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. (This actually became a viable proposition with the advent
of the study quantum mechanics). 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, Sunday, February 12, 2012
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 physical 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
independant 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
2008
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · Delete
Michael Miller likes this.
1 share
Michael Miller Then why does a large enogh say 'ball bearing' paved on
a concete slab displace the dirt under the slap until the surface area
= or is> greater in resistance than the total mass in place?
September 25, 2011 at 8:25pm · Like
John Reed I don't understand your question. However the attractive
action on atoms is a form of electromagnetism that we feel as
resistance only. When we feel the actual electro-magnetism we are
familiar with we are in the process of being electrocuted.
September 25, 2011 at 9:54pm · Like · 1
John Reed Are you referring to a displaced dirt version of Aechimedes
priniple?
September 25, 2011 at 11:50pm · Like
Peter Stewart not to change the sub. did you hear that there is
something that travels faster then light.?
September 26, 2011 at 12:19am · Like
John Reed Tachyons have been theorized for some time. I don't give the
relativists too much credibility for lack of correct interpretation.
However I have heard nothing new on the subject myself. How are you
doing Pete. That's one nice looking Porsche you got.
September 26, 2011 at 12:41pm · Like
John Reed I just learned that Cern broke the speed of light. I never
gave that too much credibility anyway. I do doubt that they
accelerated stable matter beyond lightspeed and with regard to
transient states of energy who knows and who cares. Stabil...See More
September 27, 2011 at 1:51am · Unlike · 2
Facebook © 2012 · English (US)
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 [mg]; 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].
So what we feel as Force [ma] may also be defined as [mg] so the
entire universe can be explained in terms of what we feel. If you
dwell on it long enough you'll break out in laughter.
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 [1]. What does [m]
represent? Mass? What does mass represent? An amount of matter?
Note:
Any location that we place a balance scale as long as the balance
scale is operational at that location, is immaterial to the function
of the balance scale. Wherever we place it 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 [2]. So [g] is a
consequence of location. 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 revelation in
your thinking you might wonder why I bother to point it out. Here I
have pointed out that what we call gravitational acceleration [g] is a
consequence of location. Therefore all objects MUST fall at the rate
of [g]. If that does not provide a Eureka moment for you then indeed
the fish are the last to recognize water.
I point it out in part because 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. When it is clear that all
objects fall at the rate of [g].
Nonetheless when Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same
rate when dropped at the same time from the same height {#} we were
amazed. Astonishingly 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]. Where the action of the balance scale on
balance equalizes the comparative resistance of two uniform and/or non-
uniform pans of atoms. It is still inexplicable to us and we have
incorporated a functioning calculational system which dumbs down our
thinking and makes us mental slaves to the overly simplifying least
action consistent mathematics.
The quantity [g] is not a consequence of the independently conserved
planet surface object resistance that we measure on the balance scale
and call mass [m].
Further, if [g] was not a consequence of location then mass [m] and
[g] acceleration could not be independent factors of the product
called weight [mg]. In such a case we would have no quantity called
mass [m] as the balance scale, on balance, would only give us weight
as [w]. We could say [w1] units of [x] = [w1] units of [y]. More
significant is the fact that in such a case we would not be here to
recognize it. You will have to think about this for now, but 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 [mg],
depend on the magnitude of [g] at the location we occupy. We can
change locations and our mass [m] remains unchanged but our weight
[mg] and what we feel [mg] vary according to a location in space.
Again its pretty simple stuff. High school physics. Do you still
wonder why I continue to discuss it? I discuss it because we have
defined the universe in terms of weight [mg], consistent with a
force that we feel [F=mg]. This Force changes with location consistent
with the arithmetic function of [1/r^2] where [r] is the distance
between two object centers.
We think that the force we feel is proportional everywhere in the
universe (with respect to mass, distance and time), to the magnitudes
we feel and measure on the surface and the surrounding space of
planets and moons. We calculate a constant of proportionality [G] [#]
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 [#]. The
centers of mass describe the trajectories of orbiting objects.
In sum we say that a force we feel and define as weight [mg], is
universally generated by inanimate and animate matter as an innate
property of matter itself. Where I have shown with only a balance
scale that this is clearly false. In the product [mg], [m] is
conserved and independent of [g] which depends on location.
Consequently, 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 is
implemented by us as our effort and is local. It does not act at a
distance. The force we feel and call gravity [F] set equivalent to
[mg] a variable resistance we act on; does depend on our location in
space. We have defined the Force we feel as the cause of the inverse
square property of least action consistent motion.
I am reminded of a passage by Alduous Huxley after smoking Hemp. He
looked at the front of his automobile and it struck him that we have
created the automobile after our own image. That turned out to be
noteworthy but minor.
So "something" acts at a distance. That "something" is the cause of
[g].
Mass [m] represents the conserved property of resistance we act on
which is the product [mg].
o0o
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 [g] is uniform on the non-uniform
atoms that make up animate and inanimate matter. The uniform action
varies not according to any property of mass [m] but according to the
property of [g] which varies with location and increases uniformly
with time. This is why all atoms fall at the same rate in a vacuum.
The pull on each is uniform in space and increases uniformly in time.
This is why we can isolate mass on the balance scale. The uniform pull
on the non-uniform atoms allows the quantitative measure of the
comparative resistance in each pan on balance. We call this emergent
conserved quantity of comparative resistance mass. This is also why
Einstein's reduction of the universe to a space-time continuum works.
Mass does not enter into anything but our interpretation based on the
Force we feel and the resistance [mg] we act on.
The uniform pull on non-uniform and uniform atoms allows us to feel
variance in the resistance of the non-uniform atoms we work against.
An object we lift offers its 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 [F] that we feel and measure as
equivalent to the quantity we have defined as weight [mg].
Gravitational force is a legacy concept based on what we feel [F], set
equivalent to the resistance we encounter, in units that are
mathematically consistent with the least action independent
description that results from matter's resistance to our effort as
[F=mg] and [F=ma].
Mass is conserved on the balance scale because [g] is a function of
location and the action on each pan is the same empty or filled..
Mass [m] is also conserved in impact experiments because mass [m] is
independent of the attraction by the planet. This attraction is
uniform on non-uniform and uniform atoms and is not an attraction on
mass [m].
Nothing pulls on us. Nonetheless we aquire our localized sense of
"self" from the uniform pull on our non-uniform atoms, which we do not
feel during freefall [#]. We feel what we call our weight (our sense
of self) 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 so called gravitational mass
[mg] the force we feel is the resistance of non-uniform atoms in
response to our effort (self). We act on this non-uniform resistance
of atoms and define it uniformly relative to our effort as [mg]. We
feel an equal and opposite force [F] because our subjective effort
(self) is equal and opposite to the objective non-uniform atom
resistance we act on. We have defined the non-uniform atom resistance
we act on uniformly as [F=mg] and [F=ma]. There is a property of atoms
that allows mass conservation.
o0o
We set the 'uniform' force we feel [F] = [Mm/r^2] which makes the so
called gravitational force between 2 objects [M] and [m] equal to the
product [Mm] divided by the square of the distance between the two
object centers. Since we have defined the force [F] that we feel
equivalent to the independent least action consistent product [mg] we
can now set [mg] = [Mm/r^2] and mathematically define the celestial
universe motion by including a constant of proportionality that agrees
with our local description [F=mg]. So that we can set [mg] = [GMm/
r^2].
Since we are a manifestation of [m] defining the force we feel in
units that represent least action consistent equations and since all
natural motion in the universe is least action consistent motion we
have allowed the least action consistent mathematics to prove our
subjective fantasies.
So [g]=[GM/r^2]. All we apparently need now is a magnitude for [G]
and we think we can calculate the mass [M] since the magnitude for [g]
is based on a location in space here [r] it will be a function of a
location in space celestially as [r]. Since [m] is conserved on the
planet surface and [g] is a funtion of location Newton generalized the
resistance [mg] set equal to the force [F] we feel and equivalent to
[mg] to the entire universe. This will work for us everywhere in the
negotiable universe because we have defined the universe we can
negotiate in terms consistent with our own image. It is of note that
when Newton presented his so called universal law of gravitation [F] =
[GMm/r^2] he had no magnitude for [G]. That determination was left to
Henry Cavendish to calculate by observing the miniscule torque between
two suspended balls.
Now consider that the force we apply when we lift an object at any
location in the universe, will always be equal to the 'weight' of the
object's atoms that resist the force we apply at that location.
Consequently the magnitude of [M] will be based on our projections for
mass magnitudes that operate independent of the controlling magnitude
based on location [g], and change according to a magnitude we feel.
The quantity acting on the atoms is measured as [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]. We have
attributed this phenomenon to Newton's 3rd law. The "equal and
opposite" law because the subjective force we generate can be
mathematically defined as equal and opposite to the objective
resistance of the non-uniform atoms we work against [#]. We can apply
[mg] to the celestial least action consistent motion because mass is
emergent conserved and independent of that motion (as seen on the
balance scale) and because [g] is a property of a location in space
(as seen on the balance scale). To be direct; none of this implies
that mass generates a universal gravitational force that we feel at a
distance. It argues against such subjectivity.
We have defined the universe through the subjective lens of our own
image. Mass was and is such a convenient emergent quantity that we
required no further analysis on precisely what mass represents. We
can 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 [F] and set
equinalent to [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 least action consistent
mass [m] can be appropriated to apply in any frame because all natural
frames are least action consistent.
Let us observe that mass is the comparative uniform resistance of non-
uniform and/or uniform atoms. Let us now examine the accepted
proposition that the atoms composing our bodies (self) are equal and
opposite to the resistance of the atoms composing the planet. The
force we feel [F] is equal and opposite to the resistance of the
planet. That means that the balance scale will balance our atoms when
the planet's atoms are placed in the other pan. That is comical.
Whereas 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.
o0o
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 proportionally
references moles of atoms. This number is consistent with grams but
would be consistent with any other unit of resistance.
To try keeping 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 for water H2O.
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 H2O, 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 (moles) that we measure 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
near 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, at any location in the
universe. Note that we are dealing with a number of atoms and use the
variable weight [mg] which applies here at any location in space. In
other words the resistance of the atoms change according to location
but the number of atoms is invariant with respect to location.
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 [F] set
equivalent to [mg] cannot be generalized to an effort by the planet.
Inanimate objects exert no effort and feel no force. And Force [F] as
we have defined it is based on what we feel anywhere.
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 consolidating 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.
o0o
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. (This actually became a viable proposition with the advent
of the study quantum mechanics). 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, Sunday, February 12, 2012
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 physical 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
independant 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
2008
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · Delete
Michael Miller likes this.
1 share
Michael Miller Then why does a large enogh say 'ball bearing' paved on
a concete slab displace the dirt under the slap until the surface area
= or is> greater in resistance than the total mass in place?
September 25, 2011 at 8:25pm · Like
John Reed I don't understand your question. However the attractive
action on atoms is a form of electromagnetism that we feel as
resistance only. When we feel the actual electro-magnetism we are
familiar with we are in the process of being electrocuted.
September 25, 2011 at 9:54pm · Like · 1
John Reed Are you referring to a displaced dirt version of Aechimedes
priniple?
September 25, 2011 at 11:50pm · Like
Peter Stewart not to change the sub. did you hear that there is
something that travels faster then light.?
September 26, 2011 at 12:19am · Like
John Reed Tachyons have been theorized for some time. I don't give the
relativists too much credibility for lack of correct interpretation.
However I have heard nothing new on the subject myself. How are you
doing Pete. That's one nice looking Porsche you got.
September 26, 2011 at 12:41pm · Like
John Reed I just learned that Cern broke the speed of light. I never
gave that too much credibility anyway. I do doubt that they
accelerated stable matter beyond lightspeed and with regard to
transient states of energy who knows and who cares. Stabil...See More
September 27, 2011 at 1:51am · Unlike · 2
Facebook © 2012 · English (US)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages