johnreed

johnreed take 26 Part-4, Modified May 27, 2009

Begin quote
"Mass is defined by the resistance that a body opposes to its
acceleration (inert mass). It is also measured by the weight of the
body (heavy mass). That these two radically different definitions lead
to the same value for the mass of a body is, in itself, an astonishing
fact." End quote
Albert Einstein

Rhetorical Questions:
Why did Einstein, and why do most contemporary physicists, consider
this equivalence astonishing? Why do they consider inert mass and
gravitational mass, as "radically different definitions"? Why has the
equivalence been invoked as an unexplained principle? Where all that
is required is an explanation in words, for why "gravitational" mass,
is equivalent to inert mass.

Answer to Rhetorical Questions:
The reason is: To rationally explain the equivalence requires a
precise use of words, which requires in turn, more energy intensive
thought, than we have been willing to invest. We have been content to
rely on the convenient "least action" consistent mathematics. Its
quantitative effectiveness in a "least action" [1] universe, provides
us a pragmatic capability, far beyond an immediate necessity for the
rational comprehension of what it means.

seats." He continued with, " ... the reader is not to imagine that ...
I define the ... causes or the physical reasons ... thereof ... or
that I attribute forces, in a true and physical sense, to centers
(which are only mathematical points) when at any time I happen to
speak of centers as attracting or as embued with attractive
powers." (Principia)

Indeed, to my knowledge, other than my work [1a], no one has since,
even addressed the question of "why" the mathematics describes the
universe so well, remaining content instead, to use the effective
"least action" consistent mathematics, and leave the question
unanswered. Consequently, humanity at large has come to believe that
the mathematics is a "crystal ball" that "mysteriously" reveals the
secrets of the (least action) universe.

As an accepted "justified" consequence, the theoretical physicist
mathematician professes a great disdain for words. The academic
humanist, who thinks in words, has assumed a defacto, lowered
intellectual status, or academic caste, and accepts the theoretical
physicist's "word" interpretations for the mathematical models, with
an intimidated silence. The academic humanist is tolerated and
f****ven, and the theoretical physicist mathematician is considered a
specially gifted, "authoritative" genius. A comparative position many
theoretical physicist mathematicians have come to accept as deserved.

The application of the "least action" consistent mathematics, to our
"least action" universe, allows the theoretical physicist
mathematician's imprecise use of words, to provide a quantitative
illusion for a precise conceptual understanding, that is however, only
"attributed" to the theoretical physicist mathematician. His/her
disdain for words can be appreciated when one is introduced to the
bizarre ideas generated by the nonetheless quantitatively effective,
least action mathematical models. To see this, we need not review in
this post, the more esoteric and incomprehensible notions spawned from
the least action dependent, general relativity, and the least action
dependent, quantum mechanics.

We can understand why the so called gravitational mass is equivalent
to inert mass by requiring a higher standard of precision for our
mathematical word definitions. For example: I will show that the
reason the increased or decreased inertia, exactly matches the "so
called" gravitational force is: "Inertia" and "force" are each,
sensory properties of the universe that we measure, quantify, and
"feel". The quantity "inert mass" is generally (loosely) regarded as
a measure of "the amount of matter." This "amount of matter" is
quantified in mass units that represent "resistance", also a property
of matter that we "feel".

We can leave it at that, just as though what we feel and call
gravitational force is fundamental, because inert mass (resistance)
is conserved locally (with respect to surface planet objects) in the
least action universe. Consequently we presumptively assign the
conservation of surface planet, inert object mass (resistance), to the
celestial least action universe, where its (inert mass's) anonymous
operation, as ranged mathematical points within Kepler's least action,
law of areas, allows us to define the ranged mathematical points in
the celestial least action universe in units that are proportional to
what we, as planet surface inertial object's, feel and measure as
resistance [2],[5]. From here we carry the assumption that our feel of
force (as living planet surface inertial objects) quantified in planet
surface units of accelerated inert mass, is the cause of the least
action order that we observe as ranged mathematical points, in the
celestial least action universe [3],[5].

We can carry this further as Albert Einstein did, again, just as
though what we feel and measure (as living planet surface, inertial
objects), is fundamental, by declaring that inert mass and so called
gravitational mass are the same, as a matter of convenient,
mathematically explained principle. Where gravity (the imprecise and
erroneous, overly generalized definition of what we feel and measure,
as living, planet surface inertial objects), is a consequence of the
ranged mathematical points, now representing a curvature of spacetime,
in a least action universe, which spacetime, least action ranged
mathematical point curvature, is nonetheless, a consequence of inert
mass (what we feel and measure quantitatively, as living planet
surface inertial objects), in units that represent resistance (what
we measure and feel).

Either approach assumes that our feel of force, as living planet
surface inertial objects, quantified in units of accelerated,
conserved, inert mass (resistance), is the cause of the least action
order that we observe as ranged mathematical points in the celestial
least action universe.

Or, we can avail ourselves of the increased knowledge (that was not
available to Isaac Newton), that we have gained in the last 350 years,
and "precisely define the physical cause" of what we "feel". Recall
that "Inertia" and "force" and "resistance", are each properties of
the universe that we "feel". To answer the question then _requires_
that we define precisely what it is that we feel.

Inert mass represents the "magnitude of the intrinsic ***ulative
atomic resistance" that we measure and feel (as living, planet surface
inertial objects), but it does not tell us the "physical cause of"
what we measure and feel [7]. Rather, we have continued to assume,
that the least action order that we observe in the universe, is
"caused by" what we measure and feel. This, even as it was initially
disclaimed by Isaac Newton on the basis of his knowledge at the time,
and even as we have since, increased our knowledge, which enables us
to define the precise "physical cause" today.
oOo

I say:
If mass is the quantitative measure of the conserved ***ulative
resistance of a planet surface, inertial object's atoms (that we
measure and feel), and if we are living, planet surface inertial
objects; Then what we measure and feel, and call gravitational force,
is the accelerated, conserved, ***ulative resistance of a planet
surface inertial object's atoms. This includes the atoms that make up
our bodies and the atoms in the bowling ball that we lift.

This defines inert mass in hard objective (quantitative) terms of
"what" we feel, and compare and measure on the balance scale [7a], and
call weight. The comparative, conserved, ***ulative resistance of a
planet surface inertial object's atoms. Here, I have defined "inert
mass" (what we measure and feel) precisely, prior to generalizing it
(inert mass) to all "bodies" in the universe, on the strength of its
(inert mass's) anonymous operation [7b] , as ranged mathematical
points, along least action, celestial trajectories.

This definition explains why Newton's third law works with respect to
the conserved interaction between planet surface inertial objects, in
units of resistance called inert mass. The comparative measure of the
conserved ***ulative resistance of a planet surface inertial object's
atoms.

Where the ***ulative resistance of ANY inertial object's atoms (like
some planets, some moons, and stars, when viewed in terms of GR) may,
or may not be, more or less than the sum of a theoretical composition
of discrete atoms. In fact the state of matter at the cores of stars
and some planets and moons, may not be the same state of matter we
find at the planet surface [4], [5].

However, in the case of objects composed of pure elements, where each
and every atom is directly proportional to a single, common, inert
mass, the total mass magnitude of the object, provides us a straight
forward means to calculate the number of atoms within the object [6].
This is also true for the molecules of objects of pure compounds.
Either of these cases show that the conserved "inert mass" of the
surface planet object "pretty near" represents the conserved,
***ulative resistance of that object's atoms. This, a fundamental
aspect of the science of chemistry.

The conserved, ***ulative resistance of planet surface atoms,
assimilates the quantities "mass" and "energy", and many other
properties of planet surface matter, including many that may be
heretofore undefined. The conserved, ***ulative resistance of planet
surface atoms is felt, and measured, in units of inert mass. We have
further generalized inert mass, to describe the internal "least
action" atomic electromagnetic properties, measured as frequency and
wavelength, by way of mass and energy, through the conversion factor
called Planck's Constant (subjectively regarded as a constant of
proportionality) [7c].

Where we are attracted to the Earth and where we feel and measure the
conserved ***ulative resistance of our planet surface atoms in units
of inert mass, and the conserved ***ulative resistance of a planet
surface inertial object's atoms that we lift, in units of inert mass,
does not show that an equal and opposite attractive force exists
between our conserved inert mass (the conserved ***ulative resistance
of planet surface atoms) and the Earth's conserved inert mass (the
theoretical, conserved ***ulative resistance of atoms).

Since this resistance does not occur (air resistance occurs, of
course) when we travel in the direction our atoms are being pulled,
during free fall (Einstein and peers called this "natural motion" and
attributed it to a curved, mathematically functional, least action
dependent, 4-D spacetime, ranged mathematical point geometry), we must
wait to impact the Earth to experience that resistance from
acceleration. Where the final velocity is zero.

The idea that an increase or decrease in planet surface object
inertial mass (resistance), is precisely met by an increase or
decrease, in the so called gravitational force, where no resistance
exists during "free fall" (natural? or least action motion, measured
as a ranged series of mathematical points), is "literal" contrived
nonsense. On the other hand we feel the resistance continually at the
Earth’s surface where vertical velocity is zero. This resistance is
immediately increased as we accelerate against the direction of the
pull on our atoms.

This explains that the force "we apply" to lift the planet surface
object, precisely matches the conserved, ***ulative resistance of the
planet surface object's atoms, that we lift. Inertia is the
quantified, conserved, ***ulative resistance of a planet surface
inertial object's atoms. Therefore, we require no principle of
equivalence.

With respect to Newton's third law, equal and opposite is defined in
units that represent the "magnitude of the accelerated resistance" of
a planet surface inertial object’s atoms, that we measure and feel,
and compare against another planet surface object's atoms on the
balance scale, and call weight. Where again, the conserved ***ulative
resistance of our planet surface atoms, or the planet surface atoms of
the object that we lift, can in no objective (as opposed to
subjective) way, be set equivalent to the theoretical conserved
***ulative resistance of the atoms composing the Earth. We ask too
much from acceleration, and ranged least action mathematical points,
to say the least. Additionally, we are a part of the Earth's surface,
and we do not know what state of matter exists at the core of the
Earth, where pressure and temperature interact in ways we cannot
presently describe [4],[5].

oOo

Afterword: Consider a "pulling" force that acts on atoms individually,
or in cases parts of atoms. Such a force does not act on resistance.
More generally, if it did act on resistance, the more resistance we
applied as physical effort, the more resistance we would have to
overcome. The resistance we detect comes from the conserved,
***ulative resistance of the object's atoms at the Earth's surface,
where the pulling force acts on the object's atoms individually, and
which we must overcome collectively to lift the object. The pulling
force acts on the object's atoms individually where the force we apply
acts on the conserved, ***ulative resistance of the object's atoms
[8]. Here we feel the "accelerated" (therefore increased), conserved,
***ulative resistance of a planet surface inertial object's atoms, and
here the measure is taken at an instantaneous or final velocity.

Note that where the Earth attractor acts on atoms individually, and
not collectively on bodies (as we do, and as impacting inertial
objects do), then all atoms falling at the same rate, cogently
explains the measured equivalence. The subjective principle of
equivalence is mathematically functional, with respect to our effort
as surface planet inertial objects, and anonymously, with respect to
the mathematical points ranged along least action celestial
trajectories, but conceptually incorrect. And where the Earth
attractor acts on planet surface atoms, it should be investigatively
advantageous to examine the possibility for a form of "super"
electromagnetism that acts on all planet surface atoms, not just those
planet surface atoms with optimal structural characteristics and
properties [4].

This "super" form of electromagnetism will replace our "super" so
called, gravitationally caused blackhole, and provide a rational
theoretical framework, for pulsars and quasars and whatever else is
yet to be discovered out there. The so called universal force of
gravity, singularities, and many other mathematical arguments, will no
longer be viable. We will no longer seek blackholes and therefore, we
will no longer find them.

oOo

It took me many years to figure this "little bit" out. Too many. It
took many more years to articulate it. This is still ongoing. It will
not meet with your expectations from Physics 101 scripture. If you
consider your expectations from mathematical scripture as proved
science, and if you think my little bit is inconsistent with that
scripture, or otherwise incorrect from a rational perspective, please
be my guest and try to blow it out of the water. As I have indicated
before, I will appreciate your success if it occurs. However, if you
cannot do this, without a sole reference and reliance, on science that
is based solely on Physics 101 scripture, do your progeny a favor. Be
one of the first to recognize the veracity of my "little bit", or
remain silent.

Endnotes
[1] The principle of least action can take many mathematical and many
physical forms. For the academic humanist the easiest to understand
mathematical form is probably the static representation of a Euclidean
circle, where the cir***ference is the shortest line length to enclose
the greatest area. For the first year physics student, Kepler's laws
are easy to grasp in this regard. For the more advanced student, the
Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian are other classical forms, and
Feynman's sums of histories, yet another, albeit quantum mechanical
form. Newton's first law and his laws of motion in general derive from
a least action principle. Even the roll of a pair of dice can be
shown to derive from a least action principle. For my purpose
conceptually, "least action" is more clearly regarded as "efficient
action", where "action" includes, but takes on a broader meaning
(frame specific) than [energy/time]. Stability in the field requires
"efficient action" to the extent that stability is retained through
perpetuity.
[1a] See "johnreed take 26 - The Principle of Equivalence - Part 1"
and Part 2 and 3. Search Google.groups on "johnreed take" to access
most of the rest of it. To acquire an attempt to account for the
history of the logical development of these ideas see "johnreed take
1A, 13 OCT 2005; johnreed take 1B, 12 NOV 2005; johnreed take 1C, 22
DEC 2005; johnreed take 1D, 23 FEB 2006.
[2],[3],[6] See "Is Mass an Emergent Quantity in an Electromagnetic
Universe?" "...Research Results on Centripetal Force, Part 2".
[4] See "johnreed take 23" 24 and 25.
[5] In the case of stable, least action orbital motion, the inertial
resistance of the planet and the planet's momentum, are secondary to
the time controlled least action orbit (where the orbital acceleration
and "free fall" acceleration meets that time function), as are these
properties with respect to our artificial satellites, once they are
placed in orbit. Our so called universal "orbit controlling
gravitational force" (while controlling us) conveniently (anonymously)
operates within the time constraints of Kepler's law of areas. Where
we have mathematically converted angular velocity [v^2/r], to angular
momentum [mv^2/r], by multiplying both sides of a least action
equation by unity in the convenient anonymous form of [m/m] [6]. In
short we have defined the least action universe after our own planet
surface inertial object image. It is functional for us, as planet
surface inertial objects, but subjective and conceptually
limiting.
[6] Here [F=mg] can be written as [F=nNmg], where [n] represents the
number of moles, [N] represents Avagadro's number, and [mg] represents
the atomic weight of a single atom of the element.
[7] A shovel full of dirt will weigh a specific magnitude. We cannot
determine the composition of the dirt from its mass alone. We can
however, determine its mass if we have its precise composition.
[7a] All atoms fall at the same rate if dropped at the same time from
the same height. If the balance scale reflected this equivalence, each
pan would balance on the basis of the number of atoms in each pan, and
not on the basis of each atom's resistance,
[7b] Einstein co-opted this anonymous operation with the principle of
equivalence. Newton assumed that since mass is conserved with respect
to all the objects that we can measure (surface planet inertial
objects), it is conserved for all objects whatsoever, For a stated
principle, and for such a broad generalization, we must precisely
define what it is that we feel.
[7c] See http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud.pdf
[8] This is a very simple concept actually. 100 atoms falling
separately or 100 atoms falling as a cohesive object. They all arrive
at the same time if they are dropped at the same time from the same
height. The only question here* is whether the Earth attractor acts
on the atom or on its mass. That question has been eliminated in this
post.

*As I pointed out earlier in "johnreed take 1D" there is an aspect
here that I still have not completely worked out. Given that the Earth
attractor acts on atoms, a question arises that is indicated by the
Cavendish torsion bar experiment, the orientation of comet's tails
toward the Sun, the least action orbital behavior of a hollow sphere,
the sense of nauseum we feel in a descending and ascending elevator,
and possibly the action on objects within a returning to Earth, space
vehicle. Where a falling astronaut will fall at the same rate as the
vehicle, provided she is outside the vehicle. If she is inside the
vehicle, unattached to any part of the vehicle, it would appear that
she may be pressed against the inner part of the vehicle at its
furthest point from the Earth during that descent, provided no
internal atmosphere existed inside the ship and provided no external
atmsophere slowed the descent of the ship. Indeed, even with an
atmosphere a question still remains in my mind. Where her motive
power for the fall would be increased by the far inner surface of the
returning vehicle. These considerations lead me to suspect that in the
case of surface planet inertial objects (also asteroids, comets,
meteors, and some planets and moons), the actual attraction to the
planet results from an action on the surface atoms, of the planet
surface inertial object, which carries the entire, planet surface
object to the planet. This could offer insight into the nature of the
super-electromagnetic action of celestial attractors, which planet
Earth qualifies as..
johnreed

marika

johnreed take 26 Part-4, Modified May 27, 2009

mass is a pain in the ass

mk5000

"if I hadn't seen so much hard feelings
I might not could've felt other people's
So when you think of me, if and when you do
Just say, "Well, another man's done gone" ==wilco

johnreed

c

marika

notes

http://www.mandalaybay.com/

marika

On Jun 28, 5:29 am, "marika" <marika5...@gmail.com> wrote:

that's right - and thank YOU for sparing me the angst

mk5000

"I want to let it all out
We have both been wrong before
And even though my heart is torn
I only want the best for you "--nothing everything, mandy moore

johnreed

Hello:
I think this is a case of mistaked identity.
Have a good time.
jr