From: johnlawrencereedjr on
A Fireside Chat With johnreed, July 21, 2010 update

If you select a physical sub-stratum on which to base a least action
[1] consistent (efficient) explanation of the least action consistent
(efficient) stable universe motion, you must determine if your sub-
stratum works because it is consistent with least action (efficient)
motion, or because it is the cause, or consequence, of that
(efficient) motion.

I say that since all our known models, past and present, have shown
a(n) least action consistency (efficiency) 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 (efficient) 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 as 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, F=mg]. We measure this comparative objective resistance with a
balance scale [mg] and with impact experiments [ma] 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 planet surface object mass is conserved.

And because planet and moon surface mass is conserved we think it is a
fundamental property of the universe. We loosely regard it generally
as an "amount of matter" based on a standardized, quantitative,
comparison of planet surface object resistance, that we set equivalent
to the force we feel and assign the force we feel to all inanimate
objects in the universe, just as though inanimate objects generate, at
a distance, the force WE FEEL. Where we feel no force during freefall
but must wait to be in contact with the planet to feel a force.

We use the similarity of the least action consistent celestial motion
and the least action consistent local motion, to proportionally carry
the celestially independent planet surface object mass to the
celestial universe as the basis for our so called, universal (planet
surface object) mass generated force. See Sections 3 and 4, this
series of posts.

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 (the equal and opposite law) and proportionally generalize
our local, subjective, planet surface object, 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 the subjective (what we
feel) but assigned physical so called gravitational attraction 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"
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 least action consistent arithmetic quotient,
this imaginary magnitude never drops to zero. We also have a blind
faith, overly generalized belief in the idea that all things that
appear true for numbers are also true for the universe.

So far all we have is 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. i.e. Depending on distance and/or time, all objects fall
at the same rate, orbit at the same rate, and escape from the planet
at the same rate. Where the mass resistance and the force we feel as a
consequence of mass resistance, while entering into our mathematics,
does not enter into the planet attractor mathematics.

If the planet attractor acted on mass, the larger the mass the more it
would be acted on by the planet attractor. Presently we selectively
use the mass resistance that we feel to argue; "Yes but with the
increase in planet surface object mass comes an increase in planet
surface object resistance that is equal and opposite to the increase
in the planet attractor force. Therefore all objects fall at the same
rate."

Since we feel no resistance (excluding air resistance) during
freefall, the argument is occult [2]. It is Pseudo-science. We are
defining the universe in terms of what we feel when we lift an object
and ascribing to inanimate objects, actions that duplicate what WE
feel when the objects are in freefall. The horizontal conservation of
mass resistance on impact is independent of the planet attraction
except in cases, as accounted for in terms of friction. Where in
freefall we feel only air resistance, anyway. See Section 5 this
series of posts.

The notion of mass as a universally general 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. We are
not speaking in an indistinct, poetic and flowery tongue here.

For an instant, let us take mass out of the incomplete, subjective,
and limited precise description provided by the least action
consistent mathematics. I say that planet surface object mass,
quantitatively defines a conserved resistance that we feel, as planet
surface objects. Let us now return mass to the least action consistent
mathematics. This resistance corresponds to what we call weight [mg]
and what we call force [ma].

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 (see Section 6). 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 inertial objects; Then
what we measure and feel, and call gravitational force, is the
accelerated, conserved, cumulative resistance of a planet 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.

Provided this is correct reasoning, we must conclude that the Earth
attractor acts on atoms and not on mass. It is a super-electro-
magnetic attraction that acts on all atoms, not just those atoms with
optimal structural characteristics. 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. It begins and ends in our body
sensory mechanisms.

This view is wholly consistent with the applicable 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

Endnotes:
[1] Section 5 and 6 as listed below provide a more comprehensive
explanation of least action. For my purpose here the reader may
substitute the word "efficient" for the phrase "least action
consistent".

[2] Once we recognize that gravity is not a force that acts on us, but
is a force we feel when we act on resistance, all that is left is
super-electromagnetism. The problem is complex and gravity is simple
and convenient. Therefore, we have to be forced into addressing it.
Gravity has to be shown as a force we feel as we respond to
resistance. Equal and opposite apply because the force we feel is
directly proportional to the conserved resistance we act on.

When we define mass in terms of a number of atoms, the occult aspect
of equal and opposite forces between planet surface objects and
planets vanish. The resistance of a planet surface object when defined
in terms of (weight) and quantified in terms of a number of atoms can
hardly be set equivalent to the resistance of the atoms composing the
planet.

Afterword: If you wish to review some of the foundational and
developmental 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 search on "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 and more, for reference. The many sub-sections
and work prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it
further as I have the time and gain familiarity with the venue.
Meanwhile my more recent work is available for public review to all,
and open to criticism and discussion by any person who joins the
group. This is a condition established by Google and newsgroups in
general. I seek no recruits. I provide information. However, there
are no restrictions or requirements to join, and I enjoy rational
discussion.

Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed

If you respond to this post from a newsgroup other than the above,
please send a copy to Randamajor(a)yahoo.com, if you want a timely
response. Thanks.