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 Subjective Aspect of Mass (in brief), February 4, 2011
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
johnreed

Posts: 61
Registered: 11/21/09
The Subjective Aspect of Mass (in brief), February 4, 2011
Posted: Feb 6, 2011 8:24 AM
  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, 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 semi-permanent 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 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.

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 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.