Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: More spam from johnreed modified
Replies: 0

 johnreed Posts: 61 Registered: 11/21/09
More spam from johnreed modified
Posted: Sep 7, 2011 8:22 PM

Robert Allan> What is truth? I think that it's fair to say that truth
is what can be proved and the rest is just...conjecture?

johnreed> In brief: It appears that if we can envisage it as the truth
and the closer we come to believing it is the truth; the greater is
the likelihood that we are wrong. This is not an iron clad rule, but
consider: We think we have proved that a universal force that we call
gravity exists as a property of inanimate matter. We believe it exists
because we feel our weight. We believe it acts on us because we feel
our weight. We define it in units of what we feel, our weight; as the
product of mass and acceleration [mg]. We postulate that inertial
mass [ma] and so called gravitational mass [mg] are equivalent with
respect to the celestial universe because they are equivalent with
respect to what we feel as, our weight [mg] and force [ma].

So developing logic through the lens provided by our senses allows us
to define the least action consistent universe after our own least
action consistent image. Our weight [mg] and a force that we feel
[ma]. Both [g] and [a] represent acceleration[1].

Note:
Where we place a balance scale is immaterial to the balance scale.
Wherever we place it the magnitude of [g] will be the same on each pan
regardless of the mass magnitudes placed on the pans (this is true
except in theoretical cases where extreme magnitudes that exist in
mathematical fantasies are projected to vary greatly in very short
distances). So when we define an object in units of [mg] the only
quantity we are comparing is the quantity of mass [m], on the balance
scale. [g] is a consequence of location. That's pretty simple isn't
it? So you might wonder why I bother to point it out.

If [g] was not a consequence of location then mass [m] and [g]
acceleration could not be separated into the components of weight
[mg]. In such a case the balance scale would only give us weight as
[w]. In fact we used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000
years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy objects fell faster
than lighter objects. So when Galileo showed that all objects fall at
the same rate we were amazed and we have remained amazed for 450
years.

This is because our normal use for the balance scale is to compare
weight [mg]. Weight is specific to location and specific to what we
feel at that location. Weight, [mg], and what we feel varies according
to a location in space. Given any mass [m] all three, weight, [mg] and
what we feel, depend on the magnitude of [g]. We can change locations
and our mass [m] remains unchanged but our weight, [mg] and what we
feel varies according to a location in space. Again its pretty simple
stuff. High school physics. So why do I discuss it? Because we have
defined the universe in terms of what we feel.

We say that a force we feel as weight [mg] is universally generated by
inanimate and animate matter as an inate property of matter itself. We
think that it is proportional everywhere in the universe (in terms of
mass, distance and time), to the magnitudes we measure on the surface
of planets and moons. I say this is clearly (I don't use the word
clearly often) false. The force we feel is generated by us (our
effort) and we apply it to inanimate matter and/or feel it through
physically interacting with inanimate and animate matter. The force we
feel does not act at a distance. The force we feel does depend on our
location in space. So "something" acts at a distance.

All atoms fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Therefore I conclude that
the planet attractor acts uniformly on each atom (Einstein proposed a
uniform gravitational field). This is the "level" playing field we are
born in and the field that contains the atoms from which we are built.
Given the level playing field that acts on all atoms 'uniformly'; we
feel the cumulative 'non'-uniform resistance of those atoms when we
'work' against the direction the field of atoms is uniformly pulled.
When we 'travel' in the direction the field uniformly pulls on our
atoms, we experience free fall, or no resistance other than air
resistance. The 'universal 'attractive action is uniform on the non-
uniform atoms that make up animate and inanimate matter. This is why
all atoms fall at the same rate in vacuum. The pull on each is
uniform. This uniform pull allows us to feel variance in the
resistance of the non-uniform atoms we work against. An object we lift
offers its weight as resistance to our effort. It offers no resistance
to the pull of the planet, relative to us.

Gravitational force is a legacy concept based solely on what we feel
our weight, and the quantitative least action consistent mathematical
convenience of its definition [mg]. Nothing pulls on us. The pull is
uniform on our atoms which we would not feel during freefall in a
vacuum. We feel our total weight when we are in contact with the
planet; or when we accelerate away from the planet. We feel the
resistance of our non-uniform atoms when we work in opposition to the
direction the planet uniformly pulls on our non-uniform atoms. We feel
the resistance of our non-uniform atoms when we act in opposition to a
state of rest or in opposition to a state of constant motion. In all
cases of inertial mass [ma] and gravitational mass [mg] the force we
feel is the resistance of our non-uniform atoms in response to our
effort. We act on this non-uniform resistance and we feel an equal and
opposite force because our effort is equal and opposite to the
resistance we act on. We have defined it that way. [F=mg].

The force we apply when we lift an object at any location, will
always be equal to the weight of the object's atoms that resist the
force we apply at that location. We generate the force. Matter
provides the resistance we must counter. We feel and generate the
force. It begins and ends in our body and effort. We lift objects.
Objects can strike us. F=mg and/or F=ma. This does not even imply that
mass generates a universal gravitational force, much less at a
distance.

We have heretofore attributed this phenomenon to Newton's 3rd law. The
"equal and opposite" law because the force we generate is equal and
opposite to the resistance we work against. Again we have defined the
universe through the lens of our own image.

There is nothing universal about the force we feel [mg] except the
resistance [m] and the location in space [g] that causes it. Our
effort cannot be generalized to the effort of the planet. Inanimate
objects exert no effort. Nonetheless we assign the force we feel to
all inanimate objects based solely on their objective resistance. The
planet attractor acts on atoms. All atoms fall at the same rate. We
lift or work against the cumulative sum of the non-uniform resistance
of the atoms in an object. The planet attractor pulls uniformly on the
object's non-uniform atoms and on our non-uniform atoms as we lift the
object. To assign the force we feel and generate, to inanimate object
resistance is error.

If you are perplexed and think that this is not what you were taught
in school, you are correct. This is what I have learned and what I am
attempting to explain. I am redefining gravitational force as a force
we feel as living objects in response to resistance. We act on
resistance and we feel the force we generate. The cause of that
resistance is undoubtably universal, it just is not the force we call
gravity. It is the planet attractor's uniform action on non-uniform
atoms. The uniform action on non-uniform atoms by the planet attractor
is why all atoms fall at the same rate. The atoms have no resistance
falling in a vacuum. We feel the resistance we call force and weight
when we interact with matter. We can quantify this resistance in units
as a product of mass and acceleration [mg] and/or [ma]. I will explain
why this works when I continue.
johnreed

Related notes:
[1] The simplest case of acceleration can be expressed as a change of
speed over time. Take the most familiar US definition for speed as
miles per hour or [m/h]. This is [distance/time] or [d/t]. [Speed
over time] then becomes [d/t]/[t] which is [d/t^2].
[1] Where mass is the conserved cumulative resistance of non-uniform
planet and moon surface 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 non-uniform 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).
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.