Snipped non-responsive reply. Georges> If you select a physical sub-stratum on which to base a least action consistent explanation of the least action consistent stable universe motion, you must determine whether or not your sub-stratum works because it is consistent with least action motion, or because it is the cause, or consequence, of that motion.
I say that since all our known models, past and present, have shown a least action consistency for any mathematical veracity, then the mass derived, so called universal gravitational model will work, for the same reason. That is, it will work to the extent that it is consistent with least action motion. Mass has many useful definitions. Where each definition reduces to a "resistance". This then, is the nature of mass: Resistance is something we feel. This is what we work against. Resistance is a subjective notion. Resistance. We quantify the resistance in units of mass. Mass is conserved. So far we have the fact that the resistance we work against is conserved when we quantify that resistance in mass units. Since mass units are conserved, the resistance they represent must be cumulative and additive and apply across grouped fundamental material entities. What can we accumulate and add too, such that mass is conserved where the grouped, individual entity, mass magnitudes, may vary? I say that the resistance we work against is the conserved cumulative resistance of planet and moon surface atoms. Therefore we do not feel a universal gravitational force. Provided this is correct reasoning, can anyone tell me what we do feel? If inert mass is the quantitative measure of the conserved cumulative resistance of a planet surface, inert object's atoms (that we measure and feel), and if we are living, planet surface inert objects; Then what we measure and feel, and call gravitational force, is the accelerated, conserved, cumulative resistance of a planet surface inert object's atoms. This includes the atoms that make up our bodies and the atoms in the bowling ball that we lift, etc. Provided this is correct reasoning, we must conclude that the Earth attractor acts on atoms and not on mass. Have a good time, johnreed restored non-responsive reply On Feb 25, 2:22 am, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > > Georges old: > > Mass is a purely abstract coefficient helping to express > > observables > > such as force and acceleration in simple structures - > > expressions. > > It is void of any physical, phenomenal sens. > > ============= > G: > And so it is. > Physics does not talk about resistance. When I try to lift myself > up by pulling on my shoe laces I experience infinite resistance > having nothing to do with any mass. > > Physics postulates proportionality of force F and acceleration a and > expresses it with the coefficient m, called "inertial mass": > > F = ma. > > Newtons second law postulated the gravity force or weight W as > proportional to gravity acceleration G with coefficient M which > he called "gravitational mass": > > W = MG > > We measure the force W and not any "resistance" with a balance > scale. > > Einstein completed General Relativity by postulating the equivalence > of m and M, a shortcut meaning that inertial and gravitational fields > cannot be distinguished within an experiment. > > Cheers > Georges > ================= -- 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.
