A Fireside Chat With johnreed, July 21, 2010 update
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Can one frame of reference be more absolute than another?
Next: The electron is not a point- it is a very complex structure
From: thejohnlreed on 21 Jul 2010 21:40 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.
From: Don Stockbauer on 21 Jul 2010 23:53 On Jul 21, 8:40 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Randama...(a)yahoo.com, if you want a timely > response. Thanks. I hope you didn't brandish a fireplace poker at your conversational opponent.
From: thejohnlreed on 22 Jul 2010 13:39
jr writes> No Don I make God damned sure no weapons are available. For self protection I use a locked steel cage from which to speak.:) Have a good time. jr |