Prev: Can we detect the bullshit of -c?
Next: Who will stun the world as next Einstein?
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]

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Can we detect the bullshit of -c?
Next: Who will stun the world as next Einstein?