A Fireside Chat With johnreed, March 29, 2010 update
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. This is what we work
against. Resistance to our subjective response and/or applied effort.
Our subjective applied effort we feel and designate as force. Our
subjective applied effort [F] is set equivalent to an objective
resistance. We quantify the objective resistance in units of
mass [F=ma]. We measure this comparative objective resistance with a
balance
scale and with impact experiments and learn that it is conserved on
planet and moon surfaces and is proportional with respect to distance
and time in planet and moon surface physical interactions between
planet and moon surface objects, which we qualify as. We learn that
mass is conserved.
And because mass is conserved we think it is a fundamental property
of
the universe. We loosely regard it as an amount of matter based on a
standardized comparison of objective resistance, that we set
equivalent to the force we feel, and assign the force we feel to all
inanimate objects in the universe. We call this gravity. And because
the force WE APPLY [F], is equal and opposite to the resistance we
encounter [ma], [mg], we devise the third law and proportionally
generalize our local, subjective, magnitudes of force to the entire
universe, based on what we measure and feel, and least action
distance
and time parameters in terms of imaginary so called gravitational
field properties to explain how the subjective physical gravitational
attraction acts at a
distance.
We conclude that Gravity (what we call what we measure as resistance,
and what we call what we feel as force) is an attractive force that
acts over infinite distances between all objects in the universe
[F=ma], [F=mg]. {[mg] = [GMm/r^2]}, The magnitude of this supposed
universal inanimate object "force" that we feel, falls off according
to the inverse
square of the distance between the objects. That is according to the
arithmetic quotient [1/r^2]. The greater the distance between the
objects [r], the weaker is the attractive force between the objects.
However, according to the arithmetic quotient, this imaginary
magnitude never drops to zero. We have a blind faith belief in the
idea that all things that are true for numbers are also true for the
universe.
So far we have the fact that the objective quantitative resistance we
work against is conserved when we quantify that resistance in mass
units. Mass figures in our planet surface object interactions. Mass
is
independent of the celestial attraction mathematics. ie. All objects
fall at the same rate.
The notion of mass as an amount of matter deludes us. Mass is a word
and is subject to the cross hair precision of the English language.
If
we don't get this precisely defined we wind up in the wash of
mathematically endorsed, but functional ignorance. For an instant,
let's view mass out of the incomplete, subjective, and limited
imprecise description provided by the least action consistent
mathematics. I say that mass quantitatively defines a conserved
resistance that we feel, as planet surface objects. This resistance
is set equivalent to what we call weight and what we call force.
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. In other words, the Earth
attractor acts on matter. We feel the cumulative resistance of that
matter as force. The cumulative resistance is the sum of the atoms
WE
act on. The force is what WE feel.
This view is wholly consistent with the present mathematical
approaches. However it also explains several present theoretical
quandaries. The quandaries were my initial focus. They led me to the
core of the present problems.
Have a good time,
johnreed
End note If you wish to review some of the foundational logic for the
ideas expressed herein, do a Google.group search on: "The Least
Action
Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Sections 1 through
9",
or "Randaminor", "Randamajor", "Thejohnreed", "Earth Attractor" or
"Planet Attractor". To exhaust the search on the internet take your
search back to 1998. To exhaust the copyright information take it to
1988 and "Pi and Angular Momentum in Perspective", "The Anti-Billiard
Ball Hypothesis", and "The Physics Preview for the 21st Century".
I have made it easier to reference my supporting work by creating a
Google Science and Technology Group titled: "The Least Action
Consistent Universe and the Mathematics". Currently it contains
Sections 1 through 9 as listed above. The many sub-sections and work
prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as I
gain familiarity with the venue.
Meanwhile it is available for public review to all, and open to
criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. No
restrictions or requirements to join.
Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed
--
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.
