A Fireside Chat With johnreed, March 27, 2010 update
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Uncertainty Principle is a form of Eucl = Ellipt unioned Hyperb #540 Correcting Math
Next: TURDS. THEIR PLACE IN SOCIETY.
From: johnlawrencereedjr on 27 Mar 2010 19:28 A Fireside Chat With johnreed, March 27, 2010 update If you select a physical sub-stratum on which to base a least action consistent explanation of the least action consistent stable universe motion, you must determine whether or not your sub-stratum works because it is consistent with least action motion, or because it is the cause, or consequence, of that motion. I say that since all our known models, past and present, have shown a least action consistency 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 motion. Mass has many useful definitions. Where each definition reduces to a "resistance". This then, is the nature of mass: Resistance is something we feel. This is what we work against. Resistance is a subjective notion. Resistance. We quantify the resistance in units of mass. Mass is conserved. So far we have the fact that the 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. Let's take mass out of the incomplete, subjective, and limited precise description provided by the least action consistent mathematics. 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. The notion of mass as the amount of matter deludes us. I say that mass quantitatively defines a conserved resistance that we feel, as planet surface objects. We measure this comparative resistance with a balance scale and with impact experiments and learn that it is conserved on planet and moon surfaces and is proportional with respect to distance and time in all planet and moon surface physical interactions between planet and moon surface objects, which we qualify as. And because mass is conserved we think it is a fundamental property of the universe. We loosely regard it as an amount of matter that generates the force we feel and call 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, magnitudes of force to the entire universe, based solely on what we measure and feel, and least action distance and time parameters And we conclude that Gravity (what we measure and feel) is an attractive force between all objects in the universe [F=ma], [F=mg]. {[mg] = [GMm/r^2]}, 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. 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 inert objects; Then what we measure and feel, and call gravitational force, is the accelerated, conserved, cumulative resistance of a planet surface inert object's atoms. This includes the atoms that make up our bodies and the atoms in the bowling ball that we lift, etc. Provided this is correct reasoning, we must conclude that the Earth attractor acts on atoms and not on mass. 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 logic for the ideas expressed herein do a Google.group search on: "The Least Action Consistent Universe and the Mathematics, Sections 1 through 9", or "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". |