Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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

Replies: 2   Last Post: Nov 30, 2010 4:50 PM

 Search Thread: Advanced Search

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 johnreed Posts: 61 Registered: 11/21/09
The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics,
Section 11, Update November 22, 2010

Posted: Oct 21, 2010 11:14 PM
 Plain Text Reply

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.

Date Subject Author
10/21/10 johnreed
11/26/10 HallsofIvy
11/30/10 johnreed

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.