The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics,Section 11, January 2011 Update,

Discussion in 'Undergraduate Math' started by johnreed, Jan 12, 2011.

  1. johnreed

    johnreed Guest

    The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
    Modified June 6, 2009, October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010
    Section 11, January 11, 2011
    John Lawrence Reed, Jr.

    The Subjective Aspect of Mass (in Brief)

    The mathematics describes least action stable and near stable systems
    well. I have shown that Isaac Newton defined celestial centripetal
    force in units proportional to planet (and moon) surface object mass,
    using the least action property of a circular orbit, as it applied to
    the least action property of Kepler's Law of Areas [1]. This, to
    generalize his notion for a universal gravitational force based on
    planet surface object mass conservation.

    I have shown the connection between Kepler's laws and least action
    motion, where surface planet object mass is independent of the
    celestial frame. (See Section 4, this series of posts.).

    I have noted the example [.5mv^2] and [mv], and [pir^2] and [2pir]. In
    the calculus, classical energy and classical momentum are analogous to
    the efficient relationship exhibited by the Euclidean circle area and
    its boundary. We should expect there to be a retained consistent
    mathematical relationship that speaks to least action efficient
    systems, across the board. Not necessarily to mass, across the board,
    since in at least one frame, the celestial; terrestrial (surface
    planet object) mass is independent, ie. all objects freefall, orbit
    and escape from a given planet and/or moon at the same rate,
    regardless of mass (depending objectively only on least action
    consistent, distance and time units, and subjectively on a force we,
    as “living” planet surface objects, feel, initiate, measure and/or,
    apply).

    Therefore we cannot proportionally generalize mass (as a conserved
    resistive amount of matter measured at the terrestrial or planet and
    moon surface classical frame), to the celestial (moon to planet,
    planet to sun) frame, based on planet surface object distance and time
    units. Planet surface object mass is independent of the celestial
    frame.

    The resistance of a planet surface object's mass, is equivalent to a
    force we, as living surface planet inertial objects, apply, measure,
    and feel (the equal and opposite third law), by definition. We cannot
    generalize a force to the entire least action consistent celestial
    universe merely because we feel a force we apply to a resistance, and
    it's scalar component [m] is conserved terrestrially and on celestial
    planet and moon surface matter.

    The functional celestial vector is a consequence of the least action
    consistent stable universe motion, the independence of planet surface
    object mass with respect to that motion, and the least action
    consistent mathematics.

    The planet and moon surface object conserved "mass in motion" vector
    is also a consequence of that least action celestial motion because
    the planet attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. In either case
    planet surface object mass is independent with respect to the planet
    and celestial attractor action. Planet surface object mass is not
    independent with respect to a force that we, as living planet surface
    objects feel.
    I conclude that planet and moon surface object mass represents the
    conserved cumulative resistance of uniformly acted upon atoms. We
    define this resistance in mass units.

    Setting the conserved cumulative resistance of an orbiting say,
    baseball's atoms, equal and opposite to, the cumulative resistance of
    the atoms composing say, the planet Earth, is an erroneous and occult
    functional indulgence, arising from the successful prediction of
    "least action" time and space parameters in conjunction with the fact
    that planet surface object mass is independent of the celestial frame.

    All we need do is duplicate the time space parameters to place any of
    our planet and moon surface objects into semi-permanent orbits. This
    provides us erroneous validation for the faulty premise put forward by
    Isaac Newton that: "Since it is true for all matter we can measure, it
    is true for all matter whatsoever." Paraphrased. This is simply not
    true.

    I conclude that the celestial order we observe is not a universal
    consequence of conserved planet and moon surface object mass (what we
    as planet and moon surface living inertial objects, apply, measure and
    solely feel as force.).

    Consequently I engaged in an extended search for a way to show that
    the planet attractor acted on atoms and not on mass. After some 12-15
    years of unsupported and discouraged research on this, I had come to
    the tentative conclusion that we cannot tell the difference, so either
    approach is functional. Clearly a sad place to leave it after all the
    time invested.

    Then one day the connection between Avogadro, the balance scale and
    the periodic table reminded me that I can determine a specific number
    of atoms if I have the mass of a pure element. So there is a direct
    conversion for planet surface object mass as resistance, to planet
    surface object mass as a number of atoms.

    Therefore, I say, that in the case of pure compounds or elements
    [F=mg] can be written as [F=nNmg], where [n] represents the number of
    moles, [N] represents Avogadro’s number, and [mg] represents the
    relative atomic weight of a single atom of the element.

    A thought experiment:
    Consider a pure, one isotope 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
    represented quantitatively as the product [mg] at location [g]. The
    quantity [g] represents an acceleration that is dependent solely on a
    distance from a center.

    In this thought experiment, we observe that the balance scale compares
    the resistance of a quantity of atoms to the resistance of a quantity
    of matter calibrated in mass units. Given that the thought experiment
    is valid, it seems clear that we feel (work against) at location [g],
    the cumulative resistance (mass) of the number of atoms in the pure
    object pan at that location.

    The action of the balance scale, on balance, speaks only to the
    uniform attractive force on the contents of each pan. The balance
    scale does not tell us what kind of force is acting on the pans. We
    can look at it as though it is a uniform attraction on mass (as Newton
    did), or a uniform attraction on atoms (where Newton did not require
    any greater distinction than mass). In either view, mass units are
    conserved.

    Question: What is it about mass that allows this?
    Answer: The planet attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. Mass is the
    conserved measure of the cumulative resistance of a number of atoms.

    In so far as the above is correct, then on any planet or moon surface,
    the force we feel, apply and measure [F], can be set precisely
    equivalent (pretty near) in objective terms, to a “number” of element
    specific atoms, again, provided we are weighing pure compounds or
    elements.

    A number of element specific atoms represent an “amount of matter” in
    a more objective conceptual (and precisely quantitative) manner, than
    our planet and moon surface object, quantitative but "subjective", and
    therefore "centrist" notion of “resistance”, as "an amount of
    matter" [m].

    Although in cases other than pure elements or compounds, the mass of
    the object alone, will not provide us a means to calculate the number
    of atoms in the object, the principle itself should generalize to all
    experimental physical analysis of samples of planet and moon surface
    matter. A prediction.

    It follows then that since conserved planet and moon surface mass can
    be set equivalent to the quantitative measure of the, cumulative
    resistance, of a planet surface, inertial object's atoms (that we
    measure and feel), and since 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 (or
    moon) 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.

    Our notion that a universal force (that we quantitatively measure in
    conserved, planet surface object mass units in motion, that we as
    living planet surface inertial objects initiate, apply, and/or, feel)
    is acting on conserved planet and moon surface mass, is subjectively
    functional (mass is not independent of the force that we feel) but
    nonetheless false. We initiate, apply and feel "the so called
    gravitational force". The attraction is on atoms. Therefore I submit
    that what we call gravity is a super form of electro magnetism that
    acts on all atoms, not just those “special case” atoms that are
    internally and externally optimally alligned.


    Endnote
    [1] Where mass is the conserved cumulative resistance of planet and
    moon surface object atoms and is conserved independent of the
    celestial least action motion. Recall that we have spin angular
    momentum and linear momentum from Newton’s first law. We don’t have
    orbital angular momentum from that law. We acquire orbital angular
    momentum from Newton’s mathematical derivation for centripetal force
    where he used a perfect circle and perfect motion to argue for
    centripetal acceleration. 
    The spinning perfect circle angular velocity is an artifact of
    the uniformly spinning circle itself. The angular velocity of a
    spinning disk, sphere, or solid object, is an artifact of the
    uniformly spinning disk, sphere, or solid. So we have least action
    consistent single object spin angular momentum as an artifact of the
    spinning perfect circle angular velocity.. 
    Newton then used the least action consistent angular velocity
    of Kepler’s empirical time controlled law of areas for 2 body
    planet orbital motion, to mathematically carry his perfectly circular
    2 body uniform motion, spin angular momentum analog, to the planet’s
    non-uniform 2 body orbital motion. 
    It’s based solely on time-space parameters where the
    emergent conserved cumulative resistance of planet and moon surface
    atoms is either designated as the cause of the least action
    consistent celestial motion (Newton’s gravity), or as the consequence
    of the least action consistent motion, as space-time curvature (Albert
    Einstein and peers). This where planet surface object mass is
    independent of the celestial frame. 

    johnreed

    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 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. The
    latter is a condition established by Google and newsgroups in general.
    I provide information. I seek no recruits. However, there are no
    restrictions or requirements to join.

    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 , if you want a timely
    response. Thanks.
     
    johnreed, Jan 12, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.