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



The Subjective Aspect of Mass (in brief), February 4, 2011
Posted:
Feb 6, 2011 8:24 AM


The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics Modified June 6, 2009, October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, January 11, 2011 Section 11, February 4, 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).
The question here is: Can we assume that the force we feel in response to resistance, measured in units of mass [mg], is the force that is attracting matter to the planet? 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), in fact and so, by definition. Can we proportionally generalize a force we feel, to the entire least action consistent, inanimate, 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. This is a critical question and forced me to circumspectly analyze mass.
To rephrase the question: Can we 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, merely based on least action consistent, planet surface object, distance and time units, where planet surface object mass is significant with respect to a force we feel, but is nonetheless independent of the celestial frame.
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 the celestial or the planet surface object 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. We have successfully defined the resistance we act on equal and opposite to a force we feel [F = mg].
Again, where planet surface object mass is independent of the celestial frame, can we proportionally generalize planet surface object mass to celestial, planet, moon and star masses, based solely on common cross frame least action characteristics of their respective motions? Is this justified beyond its pragmatic functionality?
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 of varying density.
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 number of atoms, like the mass, is a function of density. This density has historically been seen as a function of gravitational force, the force we feel and work against.
I have shown that mass represents the cumulative resistance of planet surface atoms, as measured on the balance scale. Planet and moon surface object mass represents the conserved cumulative resistance of uniformly acted upon atoms. We define this resistance in mass units. 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 pan. We can look at it subjectively as though it is a uniform attraction on mass (as Newton did with gravity), 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.
Each atom in the pure object pan is uniformly acted upon by the planet attractor. If each atom was not acted upon uniformly by the planet attractor, regardless of the atom's mass, we would not be able to acquire a balance of mass using the balance scale. Nor could we isolate mass in impact collisions.
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, but 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 semipermanent orbits. This provides us erroneous validation for the faulty premise put forward by Isaac Newton that: "Since it is true (the proportional conservation of planet surface object mass) 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.). I also conclude that black holes are a non existent fantasy based on our present subjective, quantitative but intellectually primitive gravitational beliefs. The supposed fact that we have "discovered" black holes in distant space not with standing. (We see what we expect to see. The less we know for certain, the more we think we know, and as a result of obscure observations, the more we try to extend our infirm knowledge to the rest of the universe. The rarest of supporting observations provide us "evidentiary proof" for our absurd notions. Which conclusions insure we continue in our dumbed down theoretical mode.)
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 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.
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 object 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 timespace 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 spacetime 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 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. 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.



