A Fireside Chat With johnreed, June 17, 2010 update
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Einstein the supreme bungler - why Theory of General Relativity is bollocks
Next: Lying for Einstein
From: thejohnlreed on 21 Jun 2010 01:51 A Fireside Chat With johnreed, June 17, 2010 update If you select a physical sub-stratum on which to base a least action [1] consistent (efficient) explanation of the least action consistent (efficient) stable universe motion, you must determine whether or not your sub-stratum works because it is consistent with least action (efficient) motion, or because it is the cause, or consequence, of that (efficient) motion. I say that since all our known models, past and present, have shown a(n) least action consistency (efficiency) for any mathematical veracity, then the mass derived, so called universal gravitational model will work, for the same reason. That is, it will work to the extent that it is consistent with least action (efficient) motion. Mass has many useful definitions. Where each definition reduces to a "resistance". This then, is the nature of mass. This is what we work against. Resistance as our subjective response and/or applied effort. Our subjective applied effort we feel and designate as force. Our subjective applied effort [F] is set equivalent to an objective resistance. We quantify the objective resistance in units of mass [F=ma, F=mg]. We measure this comparative objective resistance with a balance scale [mg] and with impact experiments [ma] and learn that it is conserved on planet and moon surfaces and is proportional with respect to distance and time in planet and moon surface physical interactions between planet and moon surface objects, which we qualify as. We learn that planet surface object mass is conserved. And because mass is conserved we think it is a fundamental property of the universe. We loosely regard it generally as an "amount of matter" based on a standardized, quantitative, comparison of planet surface object resistance, that we set equivalent to the force we feel and assign the force we feel to all inanimate objects in the universe. If the planet attractor acted on mass, the larger the mass the more it would be acted on by the planet attractor. Presently we selectively use mass resistance to argue "Yes but with the increase in planet force comes an equal and opposite object resistance?. And so all objects fall at the same rate." Now that is occult [1]. Pseudo-science. We are defining the universe in terms of what we feel and ascribing to inanimate objects, actions that duplicate what WE feel when we lift objects with varying mass magnitudes. Whereas in freefall we feel only air resistance, anyway. We call this gravity. And because the force WE APPLY [F], is equal and opposite to the resistance we encounter [ma], [mg], we devise the third law and proportionally generalize our local, subjective, planet surface object, magnitudes of force to the entire universe, based on what we measure and feel, and least action distance and time parameters in terms of imaginary so called gravitational field properties, to explain the subjective and assigned physical so called gravitational attraction at a distance. We conclude that Gravity (what we call what we measure as resistance, and what we call what we feel as force) is an attractive force that acts over infinite distances between all objects in the universe [F=ma], [F=mg]. {[mg] = [GMm/r^2]}. The magnitude of this supposed universal inanimate object "force" falls off according to the inverse square of the distance between the objects. That is according to the arithmetic quotient [1/r^2]. The greater the distance between the objects [r], the weaker is the attractive force between the objects. However, according to the least action consistent arithmetic quotient, this imaginary magnitude never drops to zero. We have a blind faith, overly generalized belief in the idea that all things that are true for numbers are also true for the universe. So far we have the fact that the objective quantitative resistance we work against is conserved when we quantify that resistance in mass units. Mass figures in our planet surface object interactions. Mass is independent of the celestial attraction mathematics. ie. All objects fall at the same rate. The notion of mass as a universally general amount of matter deludes us. Mass is a word and is subject to the cross hair precision of the English language. If we don't get this precisely defined we wind up in the wash of mathematically endorsed, but functional ignorance. For an instant, let us take mass out of the incomplete, subjective, and limited precise description provided by the least action consistent mathematics. I say that planet surface object mass, quantitatively defines a conserved resistance that we feel, as planet surface objects. Let us now return mass to the least action consistent mathematics. This resistance corresponds to what we call weight [mg] and what we call force [ma]. Since mass units are conserved, the resistance they represent must be cumulative and additive and apply across grouped fundamental material entities. What can we accumulate and add too, such that mass is conserved where the grouped, individual entity, mass magnitudes, may vary? I say that the resistance we work against is the conserved cumulative resistance of planet and moon surface atoms (see Section 6). Therefore we do not feel a universal gravitational force. Provided this is correct reasoning, can anyone tell me what we do feel? If inert mass is the quantitative measure of the conserved cumulative resistance of a planet surface, inert object's atoms (that we measure and feel), and if 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 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. Provided this is correct reasoning, we must conclude that the Earth attractor acts on atoms and not on mass. It is a super-electro- magnetic attraction that acts on all atoms, not just those atoms with optimal structural characteristics. In other words, the Earth attractor acts on matter. We feel the cumulative resistance of that matter as force. The cumulative resistance is the sum of the atoms WE act on. The force is what WE feel. This view is wholly consistent with the present mathematical approaches. However it also explains several present theoretical quandaries. The quandaries were my initial focus. They led me to the core of the present problems. Have a good time, johnreed End note: If you wish to review some of the foundational and developmental logic for the ideas expressed herein, do a Google.group search on: "The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics", Sections 1 through 9". Or search on "randaminor", "randamajor", "thejohnreed", "Earth Attractor" or "Planet Attractor". To exhaust the search on the internet take your search back to 1998. To exhaust the copyright information take it to 1988 and "Pi and Angular Momentum in Perspective", "The Anti-Billiard Ball Hypothesis", and "The Physics Preview for the 21st Century". After note: Section 5 and 6 as listed above provide a more comprehensive explanation of least action. For my purpose here the reader may substitute the word "efficient" for the phrase "least action consistent". Endnote: [1] Once we recognize that gravity is not a force that acts on us, but is a force we feel when we act on resistance, all that is left is super-electromagnetism. The problem is so complex and gravity is so convenient, that we have to be forced into addressing it. Gravity has to be shown as a force we feel as we respond to resistance. Equal and opposite apply because the force we feel is directly proportional to the resistance we act on. When we define mass in terms of a number of atoms, the occult aspect of equal and opposite forces between planet surface objects and planets vanish. The resistance of a planet surface object when defined in terms of (weight) and quantified in terms of a number of atoms can hardly be set equivalent to the resistance of the atoms composing the planet. 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. This is a condition established by Google and newsgroups in general. I seek no recruits. I provide information. 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 Randamajor(a)yahoo.com, if you want a timely response. Thanks. |