Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
Math Topics
»
alt.math.undergrad
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




The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 11, Update November 22, 2010
Posted:
Oct 21, 2010 11:14 PM


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 1215 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 subsections 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.



