The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 6
in [Logic]
|
From: johnlawrencereedjr on 31 Mar 2010 06:08 X-No-Archive: yes 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
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 2 Apr 2010 10:42 On Mar 31, 6:08 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > X-No-Archive: yes > 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 I don't think your tile matches your content very well. I am happy to review your theory anyway, not that it is worth much (my review, that is). Sure we would like to unite electromagnetism and gravity. You use the word 'aligned' and this is somewhat a problem of geometry isn't it? Electromagnetism has clearly layed out and quite complex geomoetry, whereas gravity is sort of dumb and simple in comparison. What we need is extensibility so that the gravitational cause is a member of a family of actions (and thus arguably your least one action) which are general, but include gravity and electromagnetism. Let's face it, even electromagnetism is not quite so pristine a unification, since to this day we still discuss electricity and magnetism as unique behaviors. One detail worth noting: charge is two-signed, e.g. positive and negative. Mass is one-signed. Mass closely follows the charge paradigm, especially if we neglect the electron's mass, and resolve neutrons as one electron and one proton somehow engaged in direct cancellation of charge, rather than the misaligned atomic model of a hydrogen atom. Well, that might not hold up. Perhaps enter a three-signed model, whereby a neutral is the third option. Now, to fit mass in we'll need a neutral mass as well, and then beneath their we'll have a purely neutral entity. This is a P3P2P1 particle model under the polysign paradigm: http://bandtechnology.com/polysigned Regardless of how much you dislike this theory there are portions of coherency. Namely discrete mass, discrete charge, signed affinities, and spacetime similarities which include geometric considerations. Some of these geometric considerations do seem to be wiped out in our daily observations. As we puzzle over the alignment issue could it be that we are simply experiencing a washout from the quantity of those discretes? Perhaps a microgravity model will include some surprising geometry within it. I predict rotation will be in the crux of such a development. Electron spin came along pretty much the same way. It's rather alot to put together but we are like Shakespeare's monkeys, with a bit more going for us. Hindsight is the most impressive evidence as we stumble through the thickets of modern knowledge. Screw the moderated groups. Those guys are generally control freaks. - Tim
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Consolidate Credit Card Debt Next: EINSTEINERCISING MAKES YOU GO BLIND |