The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics,Section 11, Update November 22, 2010

Discussion in 'Undergraduate Math' started by johnreed, Oct 22, 2010.

  1. johnreed

    johnreed Guest

    The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics,
    Modified June 6, 2009, October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, June 19, 2010
    John Lawrence Reed, Jr. Section 11, August 30, 2010

    Update November 22, 2010





    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. This, to
    generalize his notion for a universal gravitational force. I have
    shown the connection between Kepler's laws and least action motion,
    where surface planet 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. With the least action consistent mathematics, we should
    expect there to be a retained consistent 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 planet and/or moon at the
    same rate, regardless of mass (depending only on least action
    consistent, distance and time units).





    Therefore we cannot proportionally generalize mass (as an amount of
    matter) measured at the terrestrial classical frame, to the celestial
    frame, based solely on distance and time units, merely because the
    resistance planet surface mass represents is equivalent to a
    (resistance) force we feel (the equal and opposite third law). And we
    cannot generalize a force we feel to the entire least action
    consistent celestial universe merely because we feel it and it's
    scalar component 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 and the least action consistent
    mathematics. The planet and moon surface "mass in motion" vector is
    also a consequence of that least action motion because the planet
    attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. Therefore, planet and moon
    surface mass represents the conserved cumulative resistance of atoms.
    I conclude that the celestial order we observe is not a universal
    consequence of conserved planet and moon surface mass (what we measure
    and feel).





    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 with 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 mass as resistance, to planet surface
    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.





    In so far as the above is correct, then on any planet or moon surface,
    [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, 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
    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 units that we as planet surface inertial objects feel) is
    acting on conserved planet and moon surface mass is subjectively
    functional but nonetheless false. 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 atoms that
    are internally and externally optimally alligned.





    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. 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. 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, Oct 22, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. johnreed

    HallsofIvy Guest

    What do you mean by "surface object mass"? You use that phrase repeatedly but never define it.

    Also you say that Newton used "the least action property of a circular orbit". Newton knew perfectly well that none of the planets moved in circular orbits.
     
    HallsofIvy, Nov 26, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. johnreed

    johnreed Guest

    HallsofIvy View profile

    More options Nov 26, 7:57 am
    What do you mean by "surface object mass"? You use that phrase
    repeatedly but never define it.

    Jr writes> The phrase should be “planet surface object mass”. I
    thought this was self explanatory in that we make no distinction with
    mass as regards the mass of planets, moons and stars, while we rely on
    the least action consistent aspect of objects in motion to generalize
    our planet surface object magnitudes of mass to the celestial
    universe, where planet surface object mass is independent of that
    celestial motion.

    Also you say that Newton used "the least action property of a
    circular orbit". Newton knew perfectly well that none of the
    planets moved in circular orbits.

    Jr writes> He used a circular boundary to inscribe a polygon of equal
    sides, where each side diminished to the infinetessimal length
    approaching the limit, which was the boundary of a circle.

    In a circle the length of any circumference segment will be directly
    proportional to the area of the circle described by the radius drawn
    from its ends to the circle center. This is a property of the circle
    itself. Since the boundary encloses the greatest area we can call this
    an efficient enclosure of space.

    He then tied the efficient aspect of the circle to Kepler’s least
    action law of areas, which is the time analog of the efficient area
    enclosing property of the circle. The time analog is an ellipse that
    obeys the law of areas.

    He inserted mass into his equations by multiplying both sides by unity
    as [m/m]. Where [m] represents planet surface object mass.
     
    johnreed, Nov 30, 2010
    #3
    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.