```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, 2010John Lawrence Reed, Jr. Section 11, August 30, 2010Update November 22, 2010The Subjective Aspect of Mass (in Brief)The mathematics describes least action stable and near stable systemswell.  I have shown that Isaac Newton defined celestial centripetalforce in units proportional to planet (and moon) surface object mass,using the least action property of a circular orbit, as it applied tothe least action property of Kepler's Law of Areas.  This, togeneralize his notion for a universal gravitational force. I haveshown the connection between Kepler's laws and least action motion,where surface planet mass is independent of the celestial frame. (SeeSection 4, this series of posts.)I have noted the example [.5mv^2] and [mv] and [pir^2] and [2pir]. Inthe calculus classical energy and classical momentum are analogous tothe efficient relationship exhibited by the Euclidean circle area andits boundary. With the least action consistent mathematics, we shouldexpect there to be a retained consistent relationship that speaks toleast action efficient systems, across the board. Not necessarily tomass across the board, since in at least one frame, the celestial,terrestrial (surface planet object) mass is independent, ie. allobjects freefall, orbit and escape from a planet and/or moon at thesame rate, regardless of mass (depending only on least actionconsistent, distance and time units).Therefore we cannot proportionally generalize mass (as an amount ofmatter) measured at the terrestrial classical frame, to the celestialframe, based solely on distance and time units, merely because theresistance planet surface mass represents is equivalent to a(resistance) force we feel (the equal and opposite third law).  And wecannot generalize a force we feel to the entire least actionconsistent celestial universe merely because we feel it and it'sscalar component is conserved terrestrially and on celestial planetand moon surface matter.The functional celestial vector is a consequence of the least actionconsistent stable universe motion and the least action consistentmathematics.  The planet and moon surface "mass in motion" vector isalso a consequence of that least action motion because the planetattractor acts on all atoms uniformly.  Therefore, planet and moonsurface mass represents the conserved cumulative resistance of atoms.I conclude that the celestial order we observe is not a universalconsequence of conserved planet and moon surface mass (what we measureand feel).Consequently I engaged in an extended search for a way to show thatthe planet attractor acted on atoms and not on mass. After some 12-15years with this I had come to the tentative conclusion that we cannottell the difference, so either approach is functional. Clearly a sadplace to leave it after all the time invested.Then one day the connection between Avogadro, the balance scale andthe periodic table reminded me that I can determine a specific numberof atoms if I have the mass of a pure element. So there is a directconversion for planet surface mass as resistance, to planet surfacemass 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 ofmoles, [N] represents Avogadro?s number, and [mg] represents therelative 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 termsto a ?number? of element specific atoms, again, provided we areweighing pure compounds or elements.A number of element specific atoms represent an ?amount of matter? ina more objective conceptual (and precisely quantitative) manner, thanour planet and moon surface, quantitative but subjective, andtherefore centrist notion of ?resistance?, as "an amount ofmatter" [m].Although in cases other than pure elements or compounds, the mass ofthe object alone, will not provide us a means to calculate the numberof atoms in the object, the principle itself should generalize to allphysical analysis of samples of planet and moon surface matter. Aprediction.It follows then that since conserved planet and moon surface mass canbe set equivalent to the quantitative measure of the, cumulativeresistance, of a planet surface, inertial object's atoms (that wemeasure and feel), and since we are living planet surface inertialobjects; Then what we measure and feel, and call gravitational force,is the accelerated, conserved, cumulative resistance of a planet (ormoon) surface, inertial object's atoms. This includes the atoms thatmake up our bodies and the atoms in the bowling ball (etc.) that welift.Our notion that a universal force (that we quantitatively measure inconserved units that we as planet surface inertial objects feel) isacting on conserved planet and moon surface mass is subjectivelyfunctional but nonetheless false. The attraction is on atoms.Therefore I submit that what we call gravity is a super form ofelectro magnetism that acts on all atoms, not just those atoms thatare internally and externally optimally alligned.johnreedI have made it easier to reference my supporting work by creating aGoogle Science and Technology Group titled: "The Least ActionConsistent Universe and the Mathematics". Currently it containsSections 1 through 9 for reference. The many sub-sections and workprior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as Ihave the time and gain familiarity with the venue. Meanwhile my morerecent work is available for public review to all, and open tocriticism and discussion by any person who joins the group.  This is acondition established by Google and newsgroups in general. I seek norecruits. I provide information.  However, there are no restrictionsor requirements to join. Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreedIf you respond to this post from a newsgroup other than the above,please send a copy to Randamajor@yahoo.com, if you want a timelyresponse. Thanks.
```