The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 6
in [Logic]
|
Prev: infinitude of Twin Primes should be a corollory of Euclid's Regular primes #4.05 Correcting Math
Next: Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences," and who'll win the "Nobel" for BP's cap&trade nostrum (circa Waxman's '91 bill) ??
From: johnlawrencereedjr on 22 Jul 2010 13:29 The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics Modified June 6, 2009, October 13, 2009, March 30, 2010 John Lawrence Reed, Jr. Section 6 A brief follow up to the authors June, 2009 post The Principle of Equivalence Explained. See also The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 5. Here the issues have been narrowed down. First I say, that in the case of pure compounds or elements [F=mg] can be written as [F=nNmg], where [n] represents the number of moles, [N] represents Avogadros number, and [mg] represents the relative atomic weight of a single atom of the element. In as much as the above is correct, then on any planet or moon surface, [F] can be precisely defined (pretty near) in objective terms as a number of element specific atoms, again, provided we are weighing pure compounds or elements. A number of element specific atoms represent an amount of matter in a more objective (and precisely quantitative) manner, than our planet surface, subjective notion of resistance, as [m]. Although in cases other than pure elements or compounds, the mass of the object alone, will not provide us a means to calculate the number of atoms in the object, the principle itself should generalize to all chemical analysis of samples of planet and moon surface matter. Second I say: It follows then that since mass is the quantitative measure of the conserved, cumulative resistance, of a planet surface, inertial object's atoms (that we measure and feel), and since 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 (or moon) 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. Our notion for a universal force acting on conserved mass is subjectively functional but nonetheless false. The attraction is on atoms. Therefore I submit that what we call gravity is a super form of electro magnetism that acts on all atoms, not just those atoms that are internally and externally optimally alligned. Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed Endnote Note that my re-definition of mass in the last paragraph above is limited to what we can experimentally verify about mass. Namely that it applies to planet (and moon) surface inertial objects. No speculation whatsoever. I have not used the universal stable system vehicle of least action, to generalize our subjective feeling of force we call gravity, and assume is the cause of the least action order we observe in the celestial universe. That assumption is speculative, revered, institutionalized, and heralded as Newtons Great Synthesis. The description you want as moderator at Sci.Physics.Research is blasphemous, not too speculative. johnreed 3/30/10 |