Total Object Mass is the cumulative sum of an object's atoms
in [Logic]
|
Prev: A different interpretation for set theory
Next: using the template to prove infinitude of Fibonacci primes, prime-Euclid-numbers and infinitude of Fermat primes #684 Correcting Math
From: PD on 6 Aug 2010 17:24 On Jul 22, 3:49 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Physicists abandoned the primary goal of physics, which was to help > us understand physical reality, i.e the metaphysics. Having done > that, they > perpetuate their own ignorance, pompously claiming that metaphysics > is beneath their dignity. > Not beneath their dignity. Just different. "Natural philosophy" used to embrace the understanding of the world through both empirical and non-empirical means. Science became defined by the core principles of the scientific method, which has a strong empirical validation element that is indispensable to the activity. Since that time (which is to say, for the last four centuries approximately), metaphysics has belonged to philosophy and not to science and in particular has dwelt on inquiry into nature of a non-empirical sort. I don't object to anyone embarking on a serious metaphysical examination of the universe, which of course will include the study of various things that are also examined by science -- such as atoms and physical properties. But it still isn't science, and a refusal to validate statements against empirical validation only underscores the difference. PD
From: johnlawrencereedjr on 13 Aug 2010 00:53 On Aug 6, 2:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 3:49 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Physicists abandoned the primary goal of physics, which was to help > > us understand physical reality, i.e the metaphysics. Having done > > that, they > > perpetuate their own ignorance, pompously claiming that metaphysics > > is beneath their dignity. > > Not beneath their dignity. Just different. "Natural philosophy" used > to embrace the understanding of the world through both empirical and > non-empirical means. Science became defined by the core principles of > the scientific method, which has a strong empirical validation element > that is indispensable to the activity. Since that time (which is to > say, for the last four centuries approximately), metaphysics has > belonged to philosophy and not to science and in particular has dwelt > on inquiry into nature of a non-empirical sort. > > I don't object to anyone embarking on a serious metaphysical > examination of the universe, which of course will include the study of > various things that are also examined by science -- such as atoms and > physical properties. But it still isn't science, and a refusal to > validate statements against empirical validation only underscores the > difference. > > PD jr writes> I am trying to bring more precision to bear on our concepts. We have generalized mass to the celestial and to the atomic frames because it has served us well in the classical frame. On that basis we assumed that mass is a fundamental aspect of the universe. However Newton recognized that we had no absolute basis for this. He wrote: "Since it is true for all the matter we can measure it is true for all matter whatsoever." Paraphrased. We have since learned that mass is not conserved in the sub-atomic frame and I am here to inform you that it is not proportionally conserved in the celestial frame based on the measure of the matter that we can measure. That is how far back I have had to go to start to straighten this mess out. Gravitational force is the force we feel when we act on resistance. The planet attracts matter. Stable and near stable matter is composed of atoms. We act on the cumulative resistance of that atom composed matter. The force we feel is not acting on us. We feel the cumulative resistance of our atoms as the planet attractor pulls on our atoms. We call the conserved resistance of these atoms mass. And that works for us because conserved mass is the resistance we work against. What more do we require? We can define the universe in terms of the force we feel since it is that force we apply. We work against a resistance that we can quantify in units of conserved mass. We don't need to know that we are working against the conserved cumulative resistance of atoms. We can maintain our limited least action consistent mathematically supported functional ignorance, because the cumulative resistance of atoms is conserved locally and is independent of the celestial super-electromagnetic acting universe. We feel the same atoms when we accelerate in opposition to the direction the planet pulls on our atoms. We do not feel our atoms when we accelerate in the direction they are being pulled. We feel our atoms when we act in opposition to a state of rest or in opposition to a state of constant motion. In all cases the force we feel is the resistance of atoms. In freefall there is no resistance. The planet attractor acts on atoms. We act on resistance and we feel an equal and opposite force because our effort is equal and opposite to the resistance we act on, by definition [F=mg]. The planet attractor acts on atoms. We pull on atoms. Two different actions. The super-electromagnetic action of the planet (acting on all atoms, not just those atoms with optimal structural characteristics) and the pulling action we apply and feel as force. The cumulative resistance of atoms to our physical effort will be conserved where a uniform attraction acts on all atoms. Again we call the cumulative resistance of atoms, mass. We regard it as an amount of matter. Mass is conserved in classical mechanics. Mass is resistance in classical mechanics. Mass is conserved resistance in classical mechanics. We cannot generalize conserved mass beyond this frame. E=mc^2 is a crude human scale approximation in that it is tied to the mass of the matter that we can measure. In the classical frame mass is the measure of the conserved cumulative resistance of atoms. The measure of mass is identical on any planet or moon such a measure can be made. Our measure of weight changes but mass does not. Mass stays the same. Resistance. What you feel changes. Resistance. Objectively we discount what you feel. I draw a distinction between conserved and unconserved mass to eliminate the celestial and the particle uses of mass inclusively when describing what is being acted on by the planet attractor. What is being acted on are atoms. What we objectively measure is conserved mass. What we feel and subjectively measure is weight (force). Mass is conserved on any planet or moon measure anywhere such a measure can be taken. Weight is not. We feel weight. We lift mass against the pull of an attractor that acts on the cumulative sum of an objects atoms. We apply a force to lift. Have a good time jr
From: jbriggs444 on 13 Aug 2010 08:12 On Aug 13, 12:53 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > We have since learned that mass is not conserved in the sub-atomic > frame On the contrary. Mass _is_ conserved at the sub-atomic level. What we have learned is that mass is not an additive quantity. The mass of a system of two or more entities is not neccessarily equal to the sum of the masses of those entities. [Alternately, you might decide that we have redefined "mass" to refer to the quantity that is actually conserved rather than to the quantity that is clasically additive] At least three disrepancies exist between the mass of a composite system and the sum of the masses of its components. Two have already been been identified in this thread. 1. The kinetic energy of each component with respect to the center-of-mass frame in which the total momentum is zero adds to the total mass of the composite system. 2. The binding energy which may hold some components together subtracts from the total mass of the composite system. In some cases (e.g. two protons repelling one another) this binding energy may go negative and add to total energy instead. 3. In General Relativity, the problem of finding the mass of a composite system is complicated by the problem of finding an inertial frame that spans the system. This spells death for conservation of mass globally, but still allows it to apply locally. [remaining nonsense snipped]
From: Androcles on 13 Aug 2010 09:57
"jbriggs444" <jbriggs444(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:95e125bc-9d57-438c-b0b0-25fa33019557(a)a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com... On Aug 13, 12:53 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > We have since learned that mass is not conserved in the sub-atomic > frame On the contrary. Mass _is_ conserved at the sub-atomic level. What we have learned is that mass is not an additive quantity. The mass of a system of two or more entities is not neccessarily equal to the sum of the masses of those entities. [Alternately, you might decide that we have redefined "mass" to refer to the quantity that is actually conserved rather than to the quantity that is clasically additive] At least three disrepancies exist between the mass of a composite system and the sum of the masses of its components. Two have already been been identified in this thread. 1. The kinetic energy of each component with respect to the center-of-mass frame in which the total momentum is zero adds to the total mass of the composite system. 2. The binding energy which may hold some components together subtracts from the total mass of the composite system. In some cases (e.g. two protons repelling one another) this binding energy may go negative and add to total energy instead. 3. In General Relativity, [remaining nonsense snipped] |