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 18

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 18

Posted: Mar 6, 2011 5:01 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

The brief version BANNED FROM PHYSICS FORUMS 2/14/2011
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 (not so brief)

I have argued that with respect to the internal kinematics of natural
stable physical systems stability in the field requires efficient
cyclic motion. I have also argued that the mathematics describes the
stable universe well because the mathematics easily represents the
efficient (least action) properties of stable physical systems.
I have shown that Isaac Newton defined celestial centripetal force in
units proportional to planet (and moon) surface object mass, using (1)
the least action property of a circular orbit, as it applied to the
least action property of Kepler's Law of Areas * and (2) that the
Force we apply [F] is equal and opposite [F=mg] to the resistance we
encounter [mg] at any location in space [g]. This, to generalize his
notion for a universal gravitational force based on the resistance we
work against weight [mg] and planet surface object mass (resistance)
conservation [2].

I have shown the connection between Kepler's laws and least action
motion, where surface planet object mass is independent of the
celestial frame. For example, increasing the orbit speed of a body by
a factor of [sqrt 2] will cause any orbiting body to escape its orbit,
regardless of the mass of the body and the mass of the planet.
Further, we cannot choose the orbit speed [s/t] independent of the
radius of the orbit [r], where we can choose the orbit speed [s/t]
largely independent of the mass of the orbiting body. (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. Further, [4/3pir^3] and [4pir^2] for the volume of a
sphere and its surface area also obey the differential-integral rule.
This is perfectly general across least action physical and
mathematical relationships. We should expect there to be a retained
consistent mathematical relationship that speaks to the least action
efficiency of systems and their properties across the board.
Not necessarily to mass, across the board, since again, in at least
one frame, the celestial; we have noted that 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 the Force
we, as ?living? planet surface objects (composed of atoms), ?feel?,
initiate, apply and measure.
In another frame, the sub-atomic, mass resistance is not conserved.
The mass of an electron and proton taken separately is not the same as
the mass of the electron and proton joined as an element.
As a consequence in part, the notion of mass as a component of Force
from [F=mg] had been modified. Relativistic mass had been defined as
[F={m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)}].
In order to maintain mass invariance with respect to our notion of
Force as [F=ma], mass is now regarded as the expression contained in
the curly brackets { } of the expression [F=d/dt {mv/sqrt(1-v^2/
c^2)}]. This to say that Force is the derivative with respect to time
of the momentum of the object. We continue to define mass (as a
component of Force) in terms of momentum. Where momentum can only be
verified with respect to planet surface objects and where mass is
independent of the celestial frame.
With no further speculation here, so far: Note that our response to
resistance [mg] is a Force that is solely felt and initiated by us.

The question here is: Should we continue to speculate that the Force
we feel in response to a resistance we encounter, measured in
conserved units of that resistance as weight [mg], is the force that
is attracting matter to the planet? Does the fact that the Force we
feel acting on us, is always equal and opposite to our weight [mg]
mean that the Force of attraction from the planet is on what we think
we feel as the material part of our weight as mass [m] in [mg]?
It?s easy to grasp the fact that each of our individual and varied
weights are equal and opposite to a Force we each feel [F=mg]. Calling
the Force we each feel gravity and generalizing it as equal and
opposite to the Force the planet exerts [Mg] on us [Mg=mg] ? is
convenient but wholly subjective. We each work against our resistance
[mg]. We do not work against the resistance of the planet [Mg].
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, by definition [F=mg]. We have defined the resistance we act
on [mg] as equal and opposite to a Force we feel. Indeed, if all
objects were alive all objects would feel [mg] when pulled or pressed
to another object. Does feeling something we can quantify as [mg] mean
that the attraction acts on and is generated by [mg]? Moreover if the
attraction acted on [mg] an increase in [m] would cause an increased
attraction. Where in fact when we increase [m] our weight [mg]
increases and we hold the planet attractor Force equivalent to the
increase we feel.
Can we generalize a Force we feel, to the entire least action
consistent, inanimate, celestial universe? This because we feel a
Force we apply to a resistance [mg], and it's scalar component [m] is
conserved independently terrestrially and on celestial planet and moon
surface matter interactions?

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 [m] is significant with respect to a Force we feel [mg],
but is nonetheless independent with respect to the celestial frame.
Mass [m] does not change. {g] changes.
If the planet were alive the only force it could feel would be the
force exerted by the smaller object. Just like a baseball flying
through the air will strike your head with a force [mg]. So too will
a falling baseball strike your head with a force [mg].
I don?t want to abandon but expand on, the useful tools we use in our
rocket science. 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. Since we are planet surface objects our 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 as 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 subjective and 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 various densities.

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 (supposedly)
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
unit of measure of the conserved cumulative resistance of a number of
atoms.

The uniform attraction on atoms creates a field that is equivalent to
an unencumbered field with respect to mass. 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. All we could acquire is a balance of weight [w], in the
event we could even exist.

All we need do is duplicate the time space parameters to place any of
our planet and moon surface objects into semi-permanent orbits. The
Force we apply to do this is on the cumulative resistance of the atoms
composing the object. Setting the conserved and emergent 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.

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 warranted.

I conclude that the celestial order we observe is not a universal
consequence of conserved planetand 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 notwithstanding.
Rather, we see what we expect to see.

The less we know for certain, the more we seem to 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 subjective
notions. Which notions insure that we continue in our intellectually
restricted 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 independently 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 in fact, and 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 on time-space parameters where the emergent conserved
independent 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.
[2] Historically the idea for the conservation of mass included its
mathematical invariance within its operation in the classical frame
and the attendant notion that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
So mass and matter were initially held as nearly synonymous in meaning
due to the fogginess surrounding the connecting thread. The balance
scale was and still is thought to represent a measure of gravitational
Force, or weight [mg].
johnreed



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.