johnreed take 26 Part-4, Modified May 13, 2009 Begin quote "Mass is defined by the resistance that a body opposes to its acceleration (inert mass). It is also measured by the weight of the body (heavy mass). That these two radically different definitions lead to the same value for the mass of a body is, in itself, an astonishing fact." End quote Albert Einstein
Rhetorical Questions: Why did Einstein, and why do most contemporary physicists, consider this equivalence astonishing? Why do they consider inert mass and gravitational mass, as "radically different definitions"? Why has the equivalence been invoked as an unexplained principle? Where all that is required is an explanation in words, for why "gravitational" mass, is equivalent to inert mass. Answer to Rhetorical Questions: The reason is: To rationally explain the equivalence requires a precise use of words, which requires in turn, more energy intensive thought, than we have been willing to invest. We have been content to rely on the convenient "least action" consistent mathematics. Its quantitative effectiveness in a "least action" universe, provides us a pragmatic capability, far beyond an immediate necessity for the rational comprehension of what it means. Isaac Newton wrote, "For I here design only to give a mathematical notion of these forces, without considering their physical causes and seats." He continued with, " ... the reader is not to imagine that ... I define the ... causes or the physical reasons ... thereof ... or that I attribute forces, in a true and physical sense, to centers (which are only mathematical points) when at any time I happen to speak of centers as attracting or as emdued with attractive powers." (Principia) Indeed, to my knowledge, other than my work [1], no one has since, even addressed the question of "why" the mathematics describes the universe so well, being content instead, to use the effective "least action" consistent mathematics, and leave the question unanswered. Consequently, humanity at large has come to believe that the mathematics is a "crystal ball" that "mysteriously" reveals the secrets of the (least action) universe. As an apparent "justified" result, the theoretical physicist mathematician professes a great disdain for words. The academic humanist, who thinks in words, has assumed a defacto, lowered intellectual status, or academic caste, and accepts the theoretical physicist's "word" interpretations for the mathematical models, with an intimidated silence. The academic humanist is tolerated and forgiven, and the theoretical physicist mathematician is considered a specially gifted, authoritative genius. A comparative position many theoretical physicist mathematicians have come to accept as deserved. The application of the "least action" [1a] consistent mathematics, to our "least action" universe, allows the physicist mathematician's imprecise use of words, to provide a quantitative illusion for a precise conceptual understanding, that is however, only "attributed" to the theoretical physicist mathematician. His/her disdain for words can be appreciated when one is introduced to the bizarre fantasy ideas generated by the nonetheless quantitatively effective, least action mathematical models. To see this, we need not review in this post, the more esoteric and incomprehensible notions spawned from the least action dependent, general relativity, and the least action dependent, quantum mechanics. We can understand why the so called gravitational mass is equivalent to inert mass by requiring a higher standard of precision for our mathematical word definitions. For example: I will show that the reason the increased inertia exactly matches the "so called" gravitational force is: "Inertia" and "force" are each sensory properties of the universe that we "feel". The quantity "inert mass" is generally (loosely) regarded as a measure of "the amount of matter." This "amount of matter" is quantified in mass units that represent "resistance", also a property of matter that we "feel". We can leave it at that, just as though what we feel and call gravitational force is fundamental, because inert mass (resistance) is conserved locally (with respect to surface planet objects) in the least action universe. Consequently we presumptively assign the conservation of surface planet, inert object mass (resistance), to the celestial least action universe, where its (inert mass) anonymous operation, as mathematical points within Kepler's least action, law of areas, allows us to define the mathematical points in the celestial least action universe in units that are proportional to what we feel (resistance) [2],[5]. From here we carry the assumption that our feel of force (as living planet surface inertial objects) quantified in planet surface units of accelerated inert mass, is the cause of the least action order that we observe as mathematical points, in the celestial least action universe [3],[5]. We can carry this further as Albert Einstein did, again, just as though what we feel (as living planet surface, inertial objects), is fundamental, by declaring that inert mass and so called gravitational mass are the same, as a matter of convenient, but unexplained principle. Where gravity (the imprecise and erroneous, overly generalized definition of what we feel, as living, planet surface inertial objects), is a consequence of the mathematical points, now representing a curvature of spacetime, in a least action universe, which spacetime, least action mathematical point curvature, is nonetheless, a consequence of inert mass (what we feel), and quantitatively measure, as living planet surface inertial objects, in units that represent resistance (what we feel). Either approach assumes that our feel of force, as living planet surface inertial objects, quantified in units of accelerated inert mass (resistance), is the cause of the least action order that we observe as mathematical points in the celestial least action universe. Or, we can avail ourselves of the increased knowledge (that was not available to Isaac Newton), that we have gained in the last 350 years, and "precisely define the physical cause" of what we "feel". Recall that "Inertia" and "force" and "resistance", are each properties of the universe that we "feel". To answer the question then _requires_ that we define precisely what it is that we feel. oOo I say: If mass is the quantitative measure of the conserved cumulative resistance of a planet surface, inertial object's atoms (that we feel), and if we are living, planet surface inertial objects; Then what we feel as gravitational force is the accelerated, conserved cumulative resistance of a planet surface inertial object's atoms. This includes the atoms that make up our bodies and the atoms in the bowling ball that we lift. This defines inert mass in hard objective (quantitative) terms of what we feel, and compare and measure on the balance scale, and call weight. The comparative, cumulative resistance of an inertial object's atoms. Here, I have defined "inert mass" (what we feel) precisely, prior to generalizing it (inert mass) to all "bodies" in the universe, on the basis of its (inert mass's) anonymous operation, in terms of mathematical points, along least action celestial trajectories. This explains why Newton's third law works with respect to the conserved interaction between planet surface inertial objects, in units of resistance called inert mass. The comparative measure of the cumulative resistance of a planet surface inertial object's atoms. Where the cumulative resistance of ANY inertial object's atoms (like some planets, some moons, and stars, when viewed in terms of GR) may, or may not be, more or less than the sum of a theoretical composition of discrete atoms. In fact the state of matter at the cores of stars and some planets and moons, may not be the same state of matter we find at the planet surface [4], [5]. However, in the case of objects composed of pure elements, where each and every atom is directly proportional to a single, common, inert mass, the total mass magnitude of the object, provides us a straight forward means to calculate the number of atoms within the object [6]. This is also true for the molecules of objects of pure compounds. Either of these cases show that the "inert mass" of the surface planet object "pretty near" represents the cumulative resistance of that object's atoms. This, a fundamental aspect of the science of chemistry. Inert mass represents the "magnitude of the intrinsic cumulative atomic resistance" that we measure and feel (as living, planet surface inertial objects), but it does not tell us the "physical cause of" what we measure and feel [7]. Rather, we have continued to assume, that the least action order that we observe in the universe, is "caused by" what we measure and feel. This even as it was initially disclaimed by Isaac Newton on the basis of his knowledge at the time, and even as we have increased our knowledge, which enables us to define the precise "physical cause" today. The cumulative resistance of atoms assimilates the quantity "energy" and many other properties of planet surface matter, including many that may be heretofore undefined. The cumulative resistance of planet surface atoms is felt and measured in units of inert mass. We have further generalized inert mass, to describe the internal atomic electromagnetic properties of frequency and wavelength, in terms of energy, through the conversion factor called Planck's Constant (regarded as a constant of proportionality) [7a]. Where we are attracted to the Earth and where we feel and measure the conserved cumulative resistance of our planet surface atoms in units of inert mass, and the conserved cumulative resistance of a planet surface inertial object's atoms that we lift, in units of inert mass, does not show that an equal and opposite attractive force exists between our conserved inert mass (the conserved cumulative resistance of atoms) and the Earth's conserved inert mass (the theoretical, conserved cumulative resistance of atoms). Since this resistance does not occur (air resistance occurs, of course) when we travel in the direction our atoms are being pulled, during free fall (Einstein and peers called this "natural motion" and attributed it to a curved, mathematically functional, least action dependent, 4-D spacetime, mathematical point geometry), we must wait to impact the Earth to experience that resistance from acceleration. Where the final velocity is zero. The idea that an increase in planet surface object inertial mass (resistance) is precisely met by an increase in the so called gravitational force, where no resistance exists during free fall (natural? or least action motion, measured as a series of mathematical points), is "literal" contrived nonsense. On the other hand we feel the resistance continually at the Earth’s surface where vertical velocity is zero. This resistance is immediately increased as we accelerate against the direction of the pull on our atoms. This explains that the force "we apply" to lift the planet surface object, precisely matches the cumulative resistance of the planet surface object's atoms, that we lift. Inertia is the cumulative resistance of an inertial object's atoms. Therefore, we require no principle of equivalence. With respect to Newton's third law, equal and opposite is defined in units that represent the "magnitude of the accelerated resistance" of an inertial object’s atoms, that we measure and feel, and compare against another object's atoms on the balance scale, and call weight. Where the conserved cumulative resistance of our atoms, or the atoms of the object that we lift, can in no objective (as opposed to subjective) way, be set equivalent to the theoretical conserved cumulative resistance of the atoms composing the Earth. We ask too much from acceleration, and least action mathematical points, to say the least. Additionally, we are a part of the Earth's surface, and we do not know what state of matter exists at the core of the Earth, where pressure and temperature interact in ways we cannot describe [4], [5]. oOo Afterword: Consider a "pulling" force that acts on atoms individually, or in cases parts of atoms. Such a force does not act on resistance. More generally, if it did act on resistance, the more resistance we applied as physical effort, the more resistance we would have to overcome. The resistance we detect comes from the cumulative resistance of the object's atoms at the Earth's surface, where the pulling force acts on the object's atoms individually, and which we must overcome collectively to lift the object. The pulling force acts on the object's atoms individually where the force we apply acts on the cumulative resistance of the object's atoms [8]. Here we feel the "accelerated" (therefore increased) cumulative resistance of an inertial object's atoms. and here the measure is taken as the cumulative resistance of the object's atoms at an instantaneous or final velocity. Note that where the Earth attractor acts on atoms individually, and not collectively on bodies (as we do, and as impacting inertial objects do), then all atoms falling at the same rate, cogently explains the measured equivalence. The subjective principle of equivalence is mathematically functional, with respect to our effort as surface planet inertial objects, and anonymously, with respect to the mathematical points along least action celestial trajectories, but conceptually incorrect. And where the Earth attractor acts on atoms, it should be investigatively advantageous to examine the possibility for a form of "super" electromagnetism that acts on all atoms, not just those atoms with optimal structural characteristics and properties [4]. This "super" form of electromagnetism will replace our "super" so called, gravitationally caused blackhole, and provide a rational theoretical framework, for pulsars and quasars and whatever else is yet to be discovered out there. The so called universal force of gravity, singularities, and many other mathematical arguments, will no longer be viable. We will no longer seek blackholes and therefore, we will no longer find them. oOo It took me many years to figure this "little bit" out. Too many. It took many more years to articulate it. This is still ongoing. It will not meet with your expectations from Physics 101 scripture. If you consider your expectations from mathematical scripture as proved science, and if you think my little bit is inconsistent with that scripture, or otherwise incorrect from a rational perspective, please be my guest and try to blow it out of the water. As I have indicated before, I will appreciate your success if it occurs. However, if you cannot do this, without a sole reference and reliance, on science that is based solely on Physics 101 scripture, do your progeny a favor. Be one of the first to recognize the veracity of my "little bit", or remain silent. Endnotes [1] See "johnreed take 26 - The Principle of Equivalence - Part 1" and Part 2 and 3. Search Google.groups on "johnreed take" to access most of the rest of it. To acquire an attempt to account for the history of the logical development of these ideas see "johnreed take 1A, 13 OCT 2005; johnreed take 1B, 12 NOV 2005; johnreed take 1C, 22 DEC 2005; johnreed take 1D, 23 FEB 2006. [1a] The principle of least action can take many mathematical and many physical forms. For the academic humanist the easiest to understand mathematical form is probably the static representation of a Euclidean circle, where the circumference is the shortest line length to enclose the greatest area. For the first year physics student, Kepler's laws are easy to grasp in this regard [1]. For the more advanced student, the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are other classical forms, and Feynman's sums of histories, yet another, albeit quantum mechanical form. Newton's first law and his laws of motion in general derive from a least action principle. Even the roll of a pair of dice can be shown to derive from a least action principle. For my purpose conceptually, "least action" is more clearly regarded as "efficient action", where "action" includes, but takes on a broader meaning (frame specific) than [energy/time]. Stability in the field requires "efficient action" to the extent that stability is retained through perpetuity. [2],[3],[6] See "Is Mass an Emergent Quantity in an Electromagnetic Universe?" "...Research Results on Centripetal Force, Part 2". [4] See "johnreed take 23" 24 and 25. [5] In the case of stable, least action orbital motion, the inertial resistance of the planet and the planet's momentum, are secondary to the time controlled least action orbit (where the orbital acceleration and "free fall" acceleration meets that time function), as are these properties with respect to our artificial satellites, once they are placed in orbit. Our so called universal "orbit controlling gravitational force" (while controlling us) conveniently (anonymously) operates within the time constraints of Kepler's law of areas. Where we have mathematically converted angular velocity [v^2/r], to angular momentum [mv^2/r], by multiplying both sides of a least action equation by unity in the convenient anonymous form of [m/m] [6]. In short we have defined the least action universe after our own planet surface inertial object image. It is functional for us, as planet surface inertial objects, but subjective and conceptually limiting. [6] Here [F=mg] can be written as [F=nNmg], where [n] represents the number of moles, [N] represents Avagadro's number, and [mg] represents the atomic weight of a single atom of the element. [7] A shovel full of dirt will weigh a specific magnitude. We cannot determine the composition of the dirt from its mass alone. We can however, determine its mass if we have its precise composition. [7a] See http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud.pdf [8] This is a very simple concept actually. 100 atoms falling separately or 100 atoms falling as a cohesive object. They all arrive at the same time if they are dropped at the same time from the same height. The only question here* is whether the Earth attractor acts on the atom or on its mass. That question has been eliminated in this post. *As I pointed out earlier in "johnreed take 1C" there is an aspect here that I still have not completely worked out. Given that the Earth attractor acts on atoms, a question arises that is indicated by the Cavendish torsion bar experiment, the least action orbital behavior of a hollow sphere, the sense of nauseum we feel in a descending and ascending elevator, and possibly the action on objects within a returning to Earth space vehicle. Where a falling astronaut will fall at the same rate as the vehicle provided she is outside the vehicle. If she is inside the vehicle, unattached to any part of the vehicle, it would appear that she may be pressed against the inner part of the vehicle at its furthest point from the Earth during that descent, provided no internal atmosphere existed inside the ship and provided no external atmsophere slowed the descent of the ship. Indeed, even with an atmosphere a question still remains in my mind. Where her motive power for the fall would be increased by the far inner surface of the returning vehicle. These considerations lead me to suspect that in the case of surface planet inertial objects (also asteroids, comets, meteors, and some planets and moons), the actual attraction to the Earth results from an action on the surface atoms, of the planet surface inertial object, which carries the entire, planet surface object to the Earth. This could offer insight into the nature of the super-electromagnetic action of Celestial attractors, which planet Earth qualifies as.. johnreed --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
