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: IS GRAVITY THE UNIFORM ATTRACTION OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS RESULTING IN
THE COMPARATIVE CUMULATIVE RESISTANCE OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS WE MEASURE ON THE
BALANCE SCALE AND CALL MASS?

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
johnreed

Posts: 61
Registered: 11/21/09
IS GRAVITY THE UNIFORM ATTRACTION OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS RESULTING IN
THE COMPARATIVE CUMULATIVE RESISTANCE OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS WE MEASURE ON THE
BALANCE SCALE AND CALL MASS?

Posted: Sep 24, 2011 4:33 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


johnlawrencereedjr
View profile
More options Sep 24, 1:27 pm
IS GRAVITY THE UNIFORM ATTRACTION OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS RESULTING IN
THE COMPARATIVE CUMULATIVE RESISTANCE OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS WE MEASURE
ON THE BALANCE SCALE AND CALL MASS?
by
John Lawrence Reed Jr
In response to a question asked by Robert Allan
A Section on the Subjects of Gravity, Light, Classical, Quantum and
Relativistic Physics
John Reed Studies
2011
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 since [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 combined into the product called 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 fall faster
than lighter objects. So when Galileo showed that all objects fall at
the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same height we
were amazed and we have remained amazed for 450 years. So amazed
that
we have devoted extensive research to verify its accuracy.
This is because our normal use for the balance scale was and is to
compare weight [mg]. Weight is specific to location and specific to
what we feel [force] 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 innate property of matter itself.
I say this is 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.
We think that the force we feel is proportional everywhere in the
universe (in terms of mass, distance and time), to the magnitudes we
feel and measure on the surface of planets and moons. Where mass is
emergent and conserved independent of the action of planets, stars
and
moons.
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. It offers resistance to the force we
apply.
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 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] and [F=ma].
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. However mass was such a convenient emergent quantity that
we
required no further analysis on precisely what mass represents. We
could navigate the planet and the universe in terms of our notion of
force.
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 of the non-uniform atoms 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 uniformly 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 on the playing field equalized by the
uniform attractive action on all atoms. We can quantify this
resistance in units as a product of mass and acceleration [ma] and/or
[mg]. I will further explain why this works when I continue.
johnreed, Saturday, 10 September, 2011
Modified Friday, September 23, 2011
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.
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 Randama...@yahoo.com, if you want a timely
response. Thanks.
johnreed Wednesday, 14 September, 2011



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.