I did too... but finally got to the wikipedia sight when I waited for it....
anyway... it's just a wiki entry... that contains among other info a chart of the Periodic Table with atomic weights of elements.. I don't know science for much... but I'm wondering,,, don't atomic weights (or the process of arriving at them) answer the point that you are trying to make? Maybe you can rephrase the issue or the theoretical problem in a better way so that a "layperson" like me can better understand the "unknown" part, the possible alternative solutions... be it in fact , theory... method... whatever... I like a good puzzle. On May 18, 11:59 am, johnlawrencereedjr <[email protected]> wrote: > I get redirected when I click on your URL. > jr > > On May 17, 4:32 pm, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_weight > > > On May 16, 11:39 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > jr writes> Thanks. It grew on me. I'll try to be clearer. Have a good > > > time. > > > johnreed > > > > On May 15, 1:48 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The attempt to think differently is laudable JR - though I don't > > > > follow it. > > > > > On May 15, 3:42 am, johnlawrencereedjr <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On May 12, 7:09 am, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I'm just a lowly nominalist sort of unscientific cowboy I guess.... > > > > > > Now get along... little dogey,,,, HAR > > > > > > > dogie > > > > > > > do·gie [ dṓgee ] (plural do·gies) or do·gy [ dṓgee ] (plural > > > > > > do·gies) > > > > > > or do·gey [ dṓgee ] (plural do·geys) > > > > > > > noun > > > > > > Definition: > > > > > > > motherless calf: a calf with no mother > > > > > > > On May 11, 8:13 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 11, 10:04 am, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > What about atoms of HELIUM?....HYDROGEN...LIGHTER THAN AIR? > > > > > > > > Where are your "scales" located? > > > > > > > > Smart-Ass.... > > > > > > > > jr writes> I guess the smart ass punctuation indicates that you > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > made an important point. > > > > > > > > > How many atoms of helium would you have to pile into any > > > > > > > > conceivable > > > > > > > > "pan" to balance a "pure" object....say consisting of a "mass" > > > > > > > > pound > > > > > > > > of lead... > > > > > > > > jr writes> If we take the scale away from a source of attraction > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > will do nothing but what it was doing all along. The helium atom > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > the lead atom will also be doing what they were doing all along > > > > > > > away > > > > > > > from a source of attraction. On the other hand you can place a > > > > > > > scale > > > > > > > under the sea at the sea floor and weigh lead and gold. > > > > > > > Unfortunately > > > > > > > you can't weigh cork because it is lighter than the medium within > > > > > > > which you are weighing. > > > > > > > > Do "lighter than air" atoms "float" in a > > > > > > > > > vacuum?.....Vacuumed Compressed lighter than air elements could > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > gathered in sufficient quantity to amount to any mass "weight" > > > > > > > > , I > > > > > > > > suppose > > > > > > > > jr writes> Your point has no bearing on the argument cowboy. > > > > > > > > > On May 7, 2:38 am, johnlawrencereedjr <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Consider a pure element. On a balance scale, imagine that we > > > > > > > > > can place > > > > > > > > > one atom at a time in a pan. We have a standard calibrated > > > > > > > > > mass in the > > > > > > > > > other pan. We can (theoretically) place one atom at a time in > > > > > > > > > one pan > > > > > > > > > until it is balanced against the standard mass in the other > > > > > > > > > pan. When > > > > > > > > > we lift either the pan with atoms or the pan with the > > > > > > > > > standard mass we > > > > > > > > > feel weight. We feel the combination [mg] at location [g] > > > > > > > > > > We feel at location [g], the cumulative resistance (mass) of > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > number of atoms in the pure object pan at that location. In > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > example the balance scale compares the resistance of a > > > > > > > > > quantity of > > > > > > > > > atoms to the resistance of a quantity of matter calibrated in > > > > > > > > > mass > > > > > > > > > units. Each atom in the pure object pan is uniformly acted > > > > > > > > > upon by the > > > > > > > > > planet attractor. > > > > > > > > > > Is each atom in the calibrated object pan also uniformly > > > > > > > > > acted upon by > > > > > > > > > the planet attractor? In other words; Is this uniform action > > > > > > > > > on each > > > > > > > > > atom a consequence of each atom being identical in the pure > > > > > > > > > object? Or > > > > > > > > > is it a consequence of the planet attractor’s uniform action > > > > > > > > > on atoms > > > > > > > > > in general? The number of atoms in each pan need not be the > > > > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > In the pure atom pan we are measuring the cumulative > > > > > > > > > resistance of the > > > > > > > > > number of atoms. Without digressing into the reason we use > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > conserved unit “mass” in the first place, in this case we > > > > > > > > > call this > > > > > > > > > “mass” because we are measuring the cumulative comparative > > > > > > > > > resistance > > > > > > > > > of atoms in the pure object pan against the object in the pan > > > > > > > > > calibrated in mass units. > > > > > > > > > > Is the mass of the calibrated object also the cumulative > > > > > > > > > resistance of > > > > > > > > > the atoms in that object? Do all objects fall at the same > > > > > > > > > rate? > > > > > > > > > > Answer by critic: > > > > > > > > > > > instead of talking of the "cumulative resistance" you > > > > > > > > > > should talk of > > > > > > > > > > the total energy. It is improper to talk about > > > > > > > > > > "resistance" wrt to gravitation. In physics "resistance" > > > > > > > > > > has a completely different meaning. Speak instead of > > > > > > > > > > gravitational acceleration or even gravitational force (if > > > > > > > > > > you must). > > > > > > > > > > Jr writes> I am trying to separate our subjective > > > > > > > > > interpretation of > > > > > > > > > physical phenomena from the objective events in the universe. > > > > > > > > > Our > > > > > > > > > generalization of Force [F] (as something we feel), to the > > > > > > > > > inanimate > > > > > > > > > universe in general, as something it feels, is quite absurd > > > > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > > > face. > > > > > > > > > However wrt the use of the term “resistance”: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > Jr writes> .If we define mass [m] as a cumulative resistance > > > > > > > > > of atoms > > > > > > > > > (amount of matter) the “astonishing” aspect of the > > > > > > > > > equivalence between > > > > > > > > > inertia and weight evaporates. > > > > > > > > > > We can eliminate the “uniform gravitational field” by a > > > > > > > > > planet’s > > > > > > > > > uniform attractive action on atoms and parts of atoms. It is > > > > > > > > > a major > > > > > > > > > conceptual change where the functional existing mathematics is > > > > > > > > > retained. Which provides a segue into an understanding of an > > > > > > > > > electromagnetic universe that we as inertial objects have to > > > > > > > > > date > > > > > > > > > defined in quantities of that universe that we feel and so > > > > > > > > > work > > > > > > > > > against. My rhetorical question here suggests that all > > > > > > > > > objects fall at > > > > > > > > > the same rate. 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.
