Prev: Sun's Energy
Next: aether, the ontological matter
From: johnlawrencereedjr on 16 Nov 2009 03:14
X-No-Archive: yes
The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
Modified June 6, 2009, October 13, 2009, November 16, 2009
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Section 6

A brief follow up to the author’s 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 Avogadro’s number, and [mg] represents the relative atomic
weight of a single atom of the element.

If the above is correct then on any planet or moon surface [F] can be
precisely defined (pretty near) in terms of a “number” of atoms,
again, provided we are weighing pure compounds or elements. A number
of atoms represent an “amount of matter” in a more objective (and
precisely quantitative) manner, than our planet surface, subjective
notion of “resistance”, as [F]. 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.

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 “Newton’s
Great Synthesis”. The description you want as moderator at
Sci.Physics.Research is “blasphemous”, not “too speculative”.
johnreed 11/16/09
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Sun's Energy
Next: aether, the ontological matter