They'll be chasing the Higgs when it turns into Twigs then they'll chase that until they grasp what I am trying real hard to explain. The composite fragmentary particles are pipe dreams based on the idea that gravity is a force that controls the universe in the physical way we experience that force. And that material objects are made of material objects. It's no better than the lame remark "well what is, is". And the use of the least action consistent mathematics to explain the least action consistent universe which we have defined in our own image. Where we merely operate within that least action consistent universe in a least action consistent way and claim that the least action is caused by a force we feel. Ha Ha ha ha ha ha... it's actually pitiful that humankind can do no better than to rely on a superficial least action consistent system of mathematics that human kind operates within with out effect and then claim that that mathematics proves that humankind feels the force that controls the universe when the only time humanity feels the force that controls the universe is when he/she is being electrocuted. Have a good time.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Today's Topic Summary > > Group: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics > > - A Message to Posterity <#13572c03fdcaa989_group_thread_0> [1 Update] > - F=mg <#13572c03fdcaa989_group_thread_1> [1 Update] > > A Message to > Posterity<http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/89fe220c1a65eee> > > johnlawrencereedjr <[email protected]> Feb 12 02:19AM -0800 > > Robert Allan> What is truth? I think that it's fair to say that truth > is what can be proved and the rest is just...conjecture? > > > johnreed> In brief: It appears that if we can envisage it as the truth > and the closer we come to believing it is the truth the greater the > likelihood that we are wrong. This is not an iron clad rule, but > consider: We think we have proved that a universal force that we call > gravity exists as a property of inanimate matter. We believe it exists > because we feel our weight. We believe it acts on us because we feel > our weight. We define it in units of what we feel, our weight [mg]; as > the product of mass and acceleration [mg]. We postulate that inertial > mass [ma] and what we call gravitational mass [mg] are equivalent with > respect to the celestial universe because they are equivalent with > respect to what we measure, define and feel as our weight [mg] and > what we measure, define and feel as force [ma]. > So what we feel as Force [ma] may also be defined as [mg] so the > entire universe can be explained in terms of what we feel. If you > dwell on it long enough you'll break out in laughter. > > Developing a mathematical logic through the subjective lens provided > by our senses allows us to define the least action consistent universe > after our own least action consistent image, using the least action > consistent mathematics. Our weight as [mg] and a force that we feel as > [ma]. Both [g] and [a] represent acceleration [1]. What does [m] > represent? Mass? What does mass represent? An amount of matter? > > Note: > Any location that we place a balance scale as long as the balance > scale is operational at that location, is immaterial to the function > of the balance scale. Wherever we place it the magnitude of [g] as a > factor of the product weight [mg], will be the same on each pan > regardless of the mass magnitudes placed on the pans [2]. So [g] is a > consequence of location. Since [g] is a consequence of location, when > we define an object in units of weight [mg], the quantity the balance > scale is comparing is the quantity mass [m], whereas the quantity we > are comparing is the quantity weight [mg] which changes with location. > That's pretty simple isn't it? If it hasn't caused a revelation in > your thinking you might wonder why I bother to point it out. Here I > have pointed out that what we call gravitational acceleration [g] is a > consequence of location. Therefore all objects MUST fall at the rate > of [g]. If that does not provide a Eureka moment for you then indeed > the fish are the last to recognize water. > > I point it out in part because we used the balance scale to give us > weight for 6000 years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy > objects fall faster than lighter objects. When it is clear that all > objects fall at the rate of [g]. > > Nonetheless when Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same > rate when dropped at the same time from the same height {#} we were > amazed. Astonishingly we have remained amazed for the last 400 > years. So amazed that we have engaged in extensive research to verify > that all objects really do fall at the same rate, independent of their > mass [m], when dropped at the same time at the same place from the > same height (discounting air resistance). We are amazed because our > primary but subjective functional use for the balance scale was and is > to compare weight [mg]. Where the action of the balance scale on > balance equalizes the comparative resistance of two uniform and/or non- > uniform pans of atoms. It is still inexplicable to us and we have > incorporated a functioning calculational system which dumbs down our > thinking and makes us mental slaves to the overly simplifying least > action consistent mathematics. > > The quantity [g] is not a consequence of the independently conserved > planet surface object resistance that we measure on the balance scale > and call mass [m]. > Further, if [g] was not a consequence of location then mass [m] and > [g] acceleration could not be independent factors of the product > called weight [mg]. In such a case we would have no quantity called > mass [m] as the balance scale, on balance, would only give us weight > as [w]. We could say [w1] units of [x] = [w1] units of [y]. More > significant is the fact that in such a case we would not be here to > recognize it. You will have to think about this for now, but weight > [mg] is specific to location and specific to what we feel [weight mg] > at that location. > > Weight, [mg], and what we feel vary according to a location in space. > Given any mass [m] all three, weight, [mg] and what we feel [mg], > depend on the magnitude of [g] at the location we occupy. We can > change locations and our mass [m] remains unchanged but our weight > [mg] and what we feel [mg] vary according to a location in space. > Again its pretty simple stuff. High school physics. Do you still > wonder why I continue to discuss it? I discuss it because we have > defined the universe in terms of weight [mg], consistent with a > force that we feel [F=mg]. This Force changes with location consistent > with the arithmetic function of [1/r^2] where [r] is the distance > between two object centers. > > We think that the force we feel is proportional everywhere in the > universe (with respect to mass, distance and time), to the magnitudes > we feel and measure on the surface and the surrounding space of > planets and moons. We calculate a constant of proportionality [G] [#] > that we apply to planets, moons and stars, by analyzing the least > action consistent behavior of planet surface object mass, where planet > surface object mass is emergent and conserved independent of the least > action consistent behavior of planets, moons and stars [#]. The > centers of mass describe the trajectories of orbiting objects. > > In sum we say that a force we feel and define as weight [mg], is > universally generated by inanimate and animate matter as an innate > property of matter itself. Where I have shown with only a balance > scale that this is clearly false. In the product [mg], [m] is > conserved and independent of [g] which depends on location. > Consequently, the force we feel is generated by us (our effort) and we > apply it to inanimate matter and/or feel it through physically > interacting with inanimate and animate matter. The force we feel is > implemented by us as our effort and is local. It does not act at a > distance. The force we feel and call gravity [F] set equivalent to > [mg] a variable resistance we act on; does depend on our location in > space. We have defined the Force we feel as the cause of the inverse > square property of least action consistent motion. > > I am reminded of a passage by Alduous Huxley after smoking Hemp. He > looked at the front of his automobile and it struck him that we have > created the automobile after our own image. That turned out to be > noteworthy but minor. > > So "something" acts at a distance. That "something" is the cause of > [g]. > Mass [m] represents the conserved property of resistance we act on > which is the product [mg]. > > o0o > > All atoms fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Therefore I conclude that > the planet attractor acts uniformly on each atom (Einstein proposed a > uniform gravitational field). This is the ‘level’ playing field we are > born in and the field that contains the atoms from which we are built. > > Given the level playing field that acts on all atoms 'uniformly', we > feel the cumulative 'non'-uniform resistance of those atoms when we > 'work' against the direction the field of non-uniform atoms is > uniformly pulled. When we 'travel' in the direction the field > uniformly pulls on our atoms, we experience free fall, or no > resistance other than air resistance. > > The 'universal' attractive action [g] is uniform on the non-uniform > atoms that make up animate and inanimate matter. The uniform action > varies not according to any property of mass [m] but according to the > property of [g] which varies with location and increases uniformly > with time. This is why all atoms fall at the same rate in a vacuum. > The pull on each is uniform in space and increases uniformly in time. > This is why we can isolate mass on the balance scale. The uniform pull > on the non-uniform atoms allows the quantitative measure of the > comparative resistance in each pan on balance. We call this emergent > conserved quantity of comparative resistance mass. This is also why > Einstein's reduction of the universe to a space-time continuum works. > Mass does not enter into anything but our interpretation based on the > Force we feel and the resistance [mg] we act on. > > The uniform pull on non-uniform and uniform atoms allows us to feel > variance in the resistance of the non-uniform atoms we work against. > An object we lift offers its resistance to our effort. It offers no > resistance to the pull of the planet. It offers resistance to the > force we apply. We apply the force [F] that we feel and measure as > equivalent to the quantity we have defined as weight [mg]. > > Gravitational force is a legacy concept based on what we feel [F], set > equivalent to the resistance we encounter, in units that are > mathematically consistent with the least action independent > description that results from matter's resistance to our effort as > [F=mg] and [F=ma]. > > Mass is conserved on the balance scale because [g] is a function of > location and the action on each pan is the same empty or filled.. > Mass [m] is also conserved in impact experiments because mass [m] is > independent of the attraction by the planet. This attraction is > uniform on non-uniform and uniform atoms and is not an attraction on > mass [m]. > > Nothing pulls on us. Nonetheless we aquire our localized sense of > "self" from the uniform pull on our non-uniform atoms, which we do not > feel during freefall [#]. We feel what we call our weight (our sense > of self) when we are in contact with the planet; or when we accelerate > away from the planet. We feel the resistance of our non-uniform atoms > when we work in opposition to the direction the planet uniformly pulls > on our non-uniform atoms. We feel the resistance of our non-uniform > atoms when we act in opposition to a state of rest or in opposition to > a state of constant motion. > > In all cases of inertial mass [ma] and so called gravitational mass > [mg] the force we feel is the resistance of non-uniform atoms in > response to our effort (self). We act on this non-uniform resistance > of atoms and define it uniformly relative to our effort as [mg]. We > feel an equal and opposite force [F] because our subjective effort > (self) is equal and opposite to the objective non-uniform atom > resistance we act on. We have defined the non-uniform atom resistance > we act on uniformly as [F=mg] and [F=ma]. There is a property of atoms > that allows mass conservation. > > o0o > > We set the 'uniform' force we feel [F] = [Mm/r^2] which makes the so > called gravitational force between 2 objects [M] and [m] equal to the > product [Mm] divided by the square of the distance between the two > object centers. Since we have defined the force [F] that we feel > equivalent to the independent least action consistent product [mg] we > can now set [mg] = [Mm/r^2] and mathematically define the celestial > universe motion by including a constant of proportionality that agrees > with our local description [F=mg]. So that we can set [mg] = [GMm/ > r^2]. > Since we are a manifestation of [m] defining the force we feel in > units that represent least action consistent equations and since all > natural motion in the universe is least action consistent motion we > have allowed the least action consistent mathematics to prove our > subjective fantasies. > > So [g]=[GM/r^2]. All we apparently need now is a magnitude for [G] > and we think we can calculate the mass [M] since the magnitude for [g] > is based on a location in space here [r] it will be a function of a > location in space celestially as [r]. Since [m] is conserved on the > planet surface and [g] is a funtion of location Newton generalized the > resistance [mg] set equal to the force [F] we feel and equivalent to > [mg] to the entire universe. This will work for us everywhere in the > negotiable universe because we have defined the universe we can > negotiate in terms consistent with our own image. It is of note that > when Newton presented his so called universal law of gravitation [F] = > [GMm/r^2] he had no magnitude for [G]. That determination was left to > Henry Cavendish to calculate by observing the miniscule torque between > two suspended balls. > > Now consider that the force we apply when we lift an object at any > location in the universe, will always be equal to the 'weight' of the > object's atoms that resist the force we apply at that location. > Consequently the magnitude of [M] will be based on our projections for > mass magnitudes that operate independent of the controlling magnitude > based on location [g], and change according to a magnitude we feel. > > The quantity acting on the atoms is measured as [g]. We generate the > force. Matter provides the resistance we must counter. We feel and > generate the force. It begins and ends in our body and effort. We > lift objects. Objects can strike us. [F=mg] and/or [F=ma]. We have > attributed this phenomenon to Newton's 3rd law. The "equal and > opposite" law because the subjective force we generate can be > mathematically defined as equal and opposite to the objective > resistance of the non-uniform atoms we work against [#]. We can apply > [mg] to the celestial least action consistent motion because mass is > emergent conserved and independent of that motion (as seen on the > balance scale) and because [g] is a property of a location in space > (as seen on the balance scale). To be direct; none of this implies > that mass generates a universal gravitational force that we feel at a > distance. It argues against such subjectivity. > > We have defined the universe through the subjective lens of our own > image. Mass was and is such a convenient emergent quantity that we > required no further analysis on precisely what mass represents. We > can navigate the planet frame and the theoretical universe in terms of > our notion of force. Our notion of force consists of the product of > the conserved classical quantity mass [m] and the quantity [g] which > is an independent consequence of a location in classical celestial > space. The quantities mass [m], gravitational acceleration [g] and > acceleration [a] and their products [ma] and [mg] operate > independently and consistent with least action motion. > > There is nothing universal about the force we feel [F] and set > equinalent to [mg] beyond the conserved resistance of atoms [m] and > the location in space [g] that accompanies that resistance. I have > pointed out that these two least action consistent factors [m] and [g] > are wholly independent of one another. Even so all of our reputable > science institutions continue to endorse gravity as a fundamental fact > [5]. > > The argument I put forward can seamlessly mesh with the current long > running paradigm. The least action consistent use of the least action > consistent mathematics on a least action consistent universe requires > a strict use of precise language to describe the quantities we examine > in our convenient superficial least action consistent mathematical > way. > > For example although Mass [m] does represent an amount of matter as > the comparative resistance of a number of non-uniform and uniform > atoms, it is presently defined as a comparative resistance of 'blobs' > of matter. Bodies, particles, objects and/or blobs are all equally > non-specific. Generally we compare one blob to another blob on the > balance scale. These non-specific blobs of least action consistent > mass [m] can be appropriated to apply in any frame because all natural > frames are least action consistent. > > Let us observe that mass is the comparative uniform > > > > F=mg <http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/10146ad944fda4a7> > > archytas <[email protected]> Feb 11 08:40PM -0800 > > I'm more interested in how our standard notion of weight as mass under > the conditions we live in works pretty well as an approximation in > practice and then turns out not enough as we chase the Higgs etc. > > On Dec 28 2011, 12:15 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group > epistemology. > You can post via email <[email protected]>. > To unsubscribe from this group, > send<[email protected]>an empty message. > For more options, > visit<http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics>this group. > > -- > 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. > -- The Repuglicans wasted 5 years futzing over Bill Clinton's penis. What made you think they could run the country? You voted them back in. They wasted the country for the next 8 years and have the nerve to continue their carnivorous actions at every opportunity. We can't handle another Repuglican feeding frenzy. -- 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.
