F=mg
1 view
Skip to first unread message
johnlawrencereedjr
Dec 27, 2011, 10:25:34 PM12/27/11
to Epistemology
-------When we use a balance scale to measure weight [mg] we are
making use of the quantity [g] that with respect to the balance scale
function, is a consequence of the balance scale's location in space.
The quantity [g] at the balance scale location acts uniformly on each
pan of the balance scale and on the observer, and persists as a
uniform attraction on the contents of each pan to bring the
comparative resistance quantity mass [m] to balance in the attraction
field that acts uniformly on atoms. The uniform quantity [g] at
location allows the observer to measure comparative magnitudes of non-
uniform atomic matter in conserved quantitative uniform units that the
observer feels as resistance and defines as mass [m]. The balance
scale compares the resistance of two pans of matter.
[mg]1 = [mg]2 on the balance scale where [g] divides out because it is
a uniform external to the balance scale influence on each pan.
The balance scale compares at any location [g] the resistance [m] of
the non-uniform pans of atomic matter. The observer feels the product
[mg] at location [g]. The observer views the conserved comparative
resistance [m] at any location, as a partial causal factor of the
variable location product, weight [mg], that the observer feels.
This is a sound conclusion.
The observer also concludes that the weight [mg] is equal and opposite
to a force the observer applies and feels [F=mg]. This is not a sound
conclusion. The quantity [mg] is a resistance that is equal to a force
the observer applies [F=mg]. This is a sound conclusion.
The math works either way.
making use of the quantity [g] that with respect to the balance scale
function, is a consequence of the balance scale's location in space.
The quantity [g] at the balance scale location acts uniformly on each
pan of the balance scale and on the observer, and persists as a
uniform attraction on the contents of each pan to bring the
comparative resistance quantity mass [m] to balance in the attraction
field that acts uniformly on atoms. The uniform quantity [g] at
location allows the observer to measure comparative magnitudes of non-
uniform atomic matter in conserved quantitative uniform units that the
observer feels as resistance and defines as mass [m]. The balance
scale compares the resistance of two pans of matter.
[mg]1 = [mg]2 on the balance scale where [g] divides out because it is
a uniform external to the balance scale influence on each pan.
The balance scale compares at any location [g] the resistance [m] of
the non-uniform pans of atomic matter. The observer feels the product
[mg] at location [g]. The observer views the conserved comparative
resistance [m] at any location, as a partial causal factor of the
variable location product, weight [mg], that the observer feels.
This is a sound conclusion.
The observer also concludes that the weight [mg] is equal and opposite
to a force the observer applies and feels [F=mg]. This is not a sound
conclusion. The quantity [mg] is a resistance that is equal to a force
the observer applies [F=mg]. This is a sound conclusion.
The math works either way.
awori achoka
Dec 28, 2011, 3:48:11 AM12/28/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
I do not believe in this business of weight. In space and time we are all weightless...ie, other than the interaction of our various energies, there is no weight.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
>
Message has been deleted
Craig Weinberg
Dec 28, 2011, 7:15:17 AM12/28/11
to Epistemology
On Dec 28, 3:48 am, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not believe in this business of weight. In space and time we are all
> weightless...ie, other than the interaction of our various energies, there
> is no weight.
> I do not believe in this business of weight. In space and time we are all
> weightless...ie, other than the interaction of our various energies, there
> is no weight.
Weight is just mass on Earth. Mass is the physical presentation of
> I do not believe in this business of weight. In space and time we are all
> weightless...ie, other than the interaction of our various energies, there
> is no weight.
> I do not believe in this business of weight. In space and time we are all
> weightless...ie, other than the interaction of our various energies, there
> is no weight.
consequence relations for size/scale, density, power and momentum
potentials relative to other material objects. It is the interaction
of our various energies (well, energy is literally the same thing as
interaction), but a specific interaction: resistance. Mass is an
ordering principle of matter's motive function across space. Mass is
what makes matter matter.
Craig
archytas
Feb 11, 2012, 11:40:18 PM2/11/12
to Epistemology
I'm more interested in how our standard notion of weight as mass under
the conditions we live in works pretty well as an approximation in
practice and then turns out not enough as we chase the Higgs etc.
On Dec 28 2011, 12:15 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
wrote:
the conditions we live in works pretty well as an approximation in
practice and then turns out not enough as we chase the Higgs etc.
On Dec 28 2011, 12:15 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages