Plain English Physics 101-11

[thejohnlreed]

jr writes>
My initial arguments here are simple and involve the meaning of words
like mass and the function of simple machines like a balance scale,
and simple mathematics like constants of proportionality..

Take the idea of a constant of proportionality. Where K is a constant
of proportionality for T^2/r^3. I grasp that perfectly clear. G on the
other hand is a constant of proportionality that purports to assign
masses to planets based on our measure of mass here and Newton's basic
assumption that since its true here its true there. Paraphrased.

I think that our acceptance of G as a constant magnitude is shaky in
this day and time. Einstein set what has been known and perplexing to
us as a principle. So what does it mean? A force we feel ma is equal
to a force we feel mg? It doesn't make G any the more correct. But I
am getting ahead of my little patch of ground I'm trying to point out.
That the planet attractor acts on atoms.

Atomic spectra is electromagnetic. The displacement of distant stars
along our line of vision near the Sun was and as far as I know, still
is, attributed to gravity (lensing). It is a possibility that if
classical conserved object mass cannot be accurately proportioned
dynamically to least action consistent atomic masses niether can it be
proportioned to the least action consistent celestial star and planet
regions outside of a fill in for least action consistent equations
proportioned to classical magnitudes of least action consistent mass.

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 uniform 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 but least action consistent 2 body orbital motion.

It’s consistent with least action time-space parameters where the
emergent conserved cumulative resistance of planet and moon surface
atoms is either proportioned to (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.

So the ideas for locally measured linear momentum magnitudes remain
viable but our starting points to proportion local mass magnitudes
from (planet surface object mass and G) do not apply beyond the frame
of their origin.

It is an advanced form of "cargo cult" science, where we duplicate the
least action consistent orbital motion (Kepler) using the force we
apply and then assign that force to the entire universe because we can
take it with us wherever we go.

Thanks for your time and effort and any corrections you can apply.
Have a good time.
johnreed