The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics,Section 6, johnreed

Discussion in 'Undergraduate Math' started by johnreed, Oct 16, 2009.

  1. johnreed

    johnreed Guest

    X-No-Archive: yes
    The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
    Modified June 6, 2009, October 15, 2009
    John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
    Section 6

    A brief follow up to the author’s June,2009 post “The Principle of
    Equivalence Explained”. Here the issues have been narrowed down.

    First 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 atomic weight of
    a single atom of the element.
    If the above is correct then on any planet or moon surface [F] can be
    precisely defined (pretty near) in terms of a “number” of atoms,
    again, provided we are weighing pure compounds or elements. A number
    of atoms represent an “amount of matter” in a more objective (and
    precisely quantitative) manner, than our planet surface, subjective
    notion of “resistance”, as [F]. 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 chemical analysis of samples
    of planet and moon surface matter.
    Second I say:
    It follows then that since mass is the quantitative measure of the
    conserved, 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.

    Endnote
    Note that my re-definition of mass in the last paragraph above is
    limited to what we can experimentally verify about mass. Namely that
    it applies to planet (and moon) surface inertial objects. No
    “speculation” whatsoever. I have not used the universal stable system
    vehicle of least action, to generalize our subjective feeling of
    “force” we call gravity, and assume is the cause of the least action
    order we observe in the celestial universe. That assumption is
    “speculative”, revered, institutionalized, and heralded as “Newton’s
    Great Synthesis”. The description you want as moderator at
    Sci.Physics.Research is “blasphemous”, not “too speculative”.
    johnreed 10/15/09
     
    johnreed, Oct 16, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. johnreed

    HallsofIvy Guest

    So the mass of an object depends on the number of atoms in the object and the mass of those atoms?

    That's pretty much said in any, say, 9th grade text on general science isn't it?
     
    HallsofIvy, Oct 18, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. johnreed

    johnreed Guest

    jr writes> Pretty near, yes.
    jr writes> It seems as though it should be, doesn't it? Simple. But
    it's not.
    Have a good time.
    johnreed
     
    johnreed, Oct 19, 2009
    #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.