follow up

[thejohnlreed]

>   That's nice, but you offer no alternative. What are your
> assumptions?
>
>   (You also fail to account for inertial mass.)
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson

Hello Mark. Thanks for your input. I haven't thought of Don Shead in
years or heard from or about him. Time has sure gone by fast.

I have taken your criticism to heart and have modified my work as
follows:

Mar 2, 9:38 pm
Carving a Space to Frame an Idea
johnreed

Mass [m] is a magnitude of comparative resistance taken, in the
simplest case, at location on a balance scale using units of weight
[mg] where [g] divides out of the balance operation continually.

At any location that we place a balance scale (as long as the balance
scale is operational at that location), the function of [g] will be
immaterial to the balance scale action. Wherever we place the balance
scale the magnitude of [g] as a factor of the product weight [mg],
will be the same on each pan regardless of the mass magnitudes placed
on the pans.

The quantity [m] is derived and conserved. The quantity [g] is a
consequence of location. Therefore the balance scale compares the
resistance of atoms (matter) independent of location
using objective least action consistent units, that are consistent
with our subjective definition of force [mg].

We think we have proved that a universal force [mg] 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 motion of the greater celestial universe because they
are equivalent with respect to what we measure, define and feel, as
our weight [mg]; and what we measure, define and feel, as force [ma].

[F=ma]
[F=mg]

Since what we feel as Force [ma] may also be quantitatively defined as
[mg], where mass is derived and conserved and [g] is an independent
property of location, we think that the entire universe can be
explained in terms of what we feel. If you dwell on it long enough
yourself, you'll break out in laughter.

We think that we have "proved" that what we feel and call
"gravity" [mg], is the cause of the least action consistent celestial
universe motion. So that the changing magnitudes for [g] external to
the balance scale are a consequence of what we feel [mg], rather than
what we feel [mg], being a
consequence of our location in space.

Developing a mathematical logic through the subjective lens provided
by our senses allows us to define the least action consistent [#]
universe after our own least action consistent image, using the least
action consistent mathematics. Our weight as [mg] and a force that we
feel as [ma].

Both [g] and [a] represent acceleration. What does [m] represent?
Mass? What does mass represent? An amount of matter?

Since [g] is a consequence of location, when we define an object in
units of weight [mg], the quantity the balance scale is comparing is
the quantity mass [m], whereas the quantity we are comparing is the
quantity weight [mg] which changes with location. That's pretty simple
isn't it? If it hasn't caused a seed of revelation in your thinking
you might wonder why I bother to point it out.

When Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same rate when
dropped at the same time from the same height {#} we were all amazed.
We have remained amazed for the last 400 or so years. So amazed that
we have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects
really do fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m], when
dropped at the same time at the same place from the same height
(discounting air resistance).

We are amazed because our primary but subjective functional use for
the balance scale was and is to compare weight [mg]. Consequently we
think that the balance scale compares weight [mg]. Where the action of
the balance scale on balance equalizes the resistance of two non-
uniform (or uniform) pans of atoms, where the quantity [g] divides out
of the equation. Therefore the measure of the comparative resistance
is in mass [m] units.

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] at a particular location. If that does not provide a
Eureka moment for you then indeed the fish are the last to recognize
water.

Now that we know all objects must fall at [g] we can figure out why.
You may recognize that heretofore the question "why" with regard to
gravity has not been entertained. This is because we have incorporated
a functioning calculational system with regard to gravity and it has
been raised to a level higher than the silent rational use of language
(sometimes called thinking), As a result our conceptual thinking is
dumbed down and defers to the overly simplifying practically
functional least action consistent mathematics.

The notion of gravity will work for us practically at any location we
can occupy in the universe. However, the notion of gravity and its
attendant revered mathematics in a theoretical application constricts
us and leads us into a false abyss.
johnreed Friday, March 02, 2012
Modified Monday, March 26, 2012

jr writes> As to offering alternatives, that is coming. I have to do
one segment at a time. Thanks for the time you took to read it and
especially thanks for your critical comments. Have a good time.
johnreed