Date: Oct 21, 2010 11:14 PM Author: johnreed Subject: The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics,<br> Section 11, Update November 22, 2010 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 Randamajor@yahoo.com, if you want a timely

response. Thanks.