The Subjective Aspect of Mass (in brief), February 4, 2011

Discussion in 'Undergraduate Math' started by johnreed, Feb 6, 2011.

  1. johnreed

    johnreed Guest

    The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
    Modified June 6, 2009, October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, January 11,
    2011
    Section 11, February 4, 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).

    The question here is: Can we assume that the force we feel in response
    to resistance, measured in units of mass [mg], is the force that is
    attracting matter to the planet? 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), in fact and so, by definition. Can we proportionally
    generalize a force we feel, to the entire least action consistent,
    inanimate, 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. This is
    a critical question and forced me to circumspectly analyze mass.

    To rephrase the question: Can we 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, merely based on least action consistent,
    planet surface object, distance and time units, where planet surface
    object mass is significant with respect to a force we feel, but is
    nonetheless independent of the celestial frame.

    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 the
    celestial or the planet surface object 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. We have
    successfully defined the resistance we act on equal and opposite to a
    force we feel [F = mg].

    Again, where planet surface object mass is independent of the
    celestial frame, can we proportionally generalize planet surface
    object mass to celestial, planet, moon and star masses, based solely
    on common cross frame least action characteristics of their respective
    motions? Is this justified beyond its pragmatic functionality?

    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 of varying density.

    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 number of atoms, like the mass, is a
    function of density. This density has historically been seen as a
    function of gravitational force, the force we feel and work against.

    I have shown that mass represents the cumulative resistance of planet
    surface atoms, as measured on the balance scale. Planet and moon
    surface object mass represents the conserved cumulative resistance of
    uniformly acted upon atoms. We define this resistance in mass units.
    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 pan. We can
    look at it subjectively as though it is a uniform attraction on mass
    (as Newton did with gravity), 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.

    Each atom in the pure object pan is uniformly acted upon by the planet
    attractor. If each atom was not acted upon uniformly by the planet
    attractor, regardless of the atom's mass, we would not be able to
    acquire a balance of mass using the balance scale. Nor could we
    isolate mass in impact collisions.

    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,
    but 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 (the proportional conservation of
    planet surface object mass) 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.). I also conclude that black holes are a non-
    existent fantasy based on our present subjective, quantitative but
    intellectually primitive gravitational beliefs. The supposed fact that
    we have "discovered" black holes in distant space not with standing.
    (We see what we expect to see. The less we know for certain, the more
    we think we know, and as a result of obscure observations, the more we
    try to extend our infirm knowledge to the rest of the universe. The
    rarest of supporting observations provide us "evidentiary proof" for
    our absurd notions. Which conclusions insure we continue in our dumbed
    down theoretical mode.)

    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.

    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 object
    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, Feb 6, 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.