Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

Topic: The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics,
Section 11, January 2011 Update,

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
johnreed

Posts: 61
Registered: 11/21/09
The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics,
Section 11, January 2011 Update,

Posted: Jan 11, 2011 9:48 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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

Therefore we cannot 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, based on planet surface object distance and time
units. Planet surface object mass is independent of the celestial
frame.

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), by definition. We cannot
generalize a force to the entire least action consistent 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.

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 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.
I conclude that planet and moon surface object mass represents the
conserved cumulative resistance of uniformly acted upon atoms. We
define this resistance in mass units.

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
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 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.).

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.

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.

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 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 pans. We
can look at it as though it is a uniform attraction on mass (as Newton
did), 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.

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 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 Randamajor@yahoo.com, if you want a timely
response. Thanks.



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.