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



The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 18
Posted:
Mar 6, 2011 5:01 PM


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 differentialintegral 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 subatomic, 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(1v^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(1v^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 semipermanent 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 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 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 timespace 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 spacetime 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



