X-No-Archive: yes The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics Modified June 6, 2009, October 13, 2009, January 24, 2010 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. As far 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 [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. Our notion for a universal force acting on conserved mass is subjectively functional but nonetheless false. The attraction is on atoms. 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”. -- 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.
