johnreed

Plain English Physics 101-3 Excerpts from Published under new title Modified Monday, May 21, 2012 johnlawrencereed jr Excerpt on mass: Developing a mathematical logic through the subjective lens provided by our senses allows us to define the least action consistent [*] universe after our own least action consistent image, using the least action consistent mathematics. Our weight as [mg] and a force that we feel as [ma]. Both [g] and [a] represent acceleration. What does [m] represent? Mass? What does mass represent? An amount of matter? Since [g] with respect to the balance scale is a consequence of location, when we define an object in units of weight [mg], the quantity the balance scale is comparing is the quantity mass [m], where the quantity we are comparing is the quantity weight [mg] which changes with location. That's pretty simple isn't it? If it hasn't caused a seed of revelation in your thinking you might wonder why I bother to point it out. When Galileo argued that all objects fall at the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same height {*} we were all amazed. We have remained amazed for the last 400 years. So amazed that we have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects really do fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m], when dropped at the same time at the same place from the same height (discounting air resistance). What if they are not dropped at the same time and the same place? We are amazed because our primary but subjective functional use for the balance scale was and is to compare weight [mg]. Consequently we think that the balance scale compares weight [mg]. Where the action of the balance scale on balance equalizes the resistance of two non-uniform (or uniform) pans of atoms, where the quantity [g] divides out of the equation. Therefore the measure of the comparative resistance is in mass [m] units. This will prove to be very convenient. This is not to say that we cannot use the balance scale for a large variety of purposes. Here I have simply pointed out that what we call gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence of location. Therefore with respect to the balance scale all objects MUST fall at the rate of [g] at a particular location. If that does not provide a Eureka moment for you then indeed the fish are the last to recognize water. Now that we know all objects have to fall at [g] we can figure out why. You may recognize that heretofore the question "why" has been frowned upon by the physicist mathematician. This is because we have incorporated a functioning calculational system that has been raised to a level higher than the rational use of words (sometimes called thinking), based on "what" we call gravitational force [mg]. Recall that Ptolemy based his functional mathematics on an earth centered universe. We base our present mathematics on a force that we feel. The functional mathematics is based on a force that we feel. How centrist is that? We take it with us whereever we go. We function in the universe like any other least action consistent object and define the least action consistent universe in terms of the least action consistent units that we feel. The resistance we encounter is equal to a force we feel. Therefore the resistance we encounter is regarded as an equal and opposite force mysteriously initiated by inanimate matter. We think that the force we feel is initiated by innanimate matter that feels nothing. Inanimate matter feels nothing folks. The force we feel is equal to the resistance we encounter. That resistance is caused by a uniform action on atoms. Not a uniform or non uniform action on mass. As a result our conceptual thinking is dumbed down and made a slave to the overly simplifying practically functional least action consistent mathematics. The notion of gravity will work for us practically at any location we can occupy in the universe. However, the notion for gravity and its attendant new age Ptolmaic mathematics in a theoretical application constricts us and leads us into a false abyss. Excerpt on a Conclusion: We cannot overly generalize sensory quantities that operate solely within least action parameters, beyond the specific frame within which they directly apply. Where we can quantify a force we feel, in terms of our inertial mass, as isolated on the planet surface and applicable to our interactions with surface planet inertial mass objects within the planet field. We cannot generalize that notion of force to serve as the cause of the least action consistent behavior of the local and/or of the celestial bodies that apparently generate the field. We can, as inertial objects, use it to predict our operational and navigational requirements through the field. This contradicts Newton's justifying premise for the generalization of local planet surface object mass to celestial bodies. That premise consisted solely of the assumption that since it is true for the mass of everything we can measure, it is true for the mass of every thing everywhere that we can't measure. Pure subjective centrism compounded. johnreed

johnlawrencereed jr Developing a mathematical logic through the subjective lens provided by our senses allows us to define the least action consistent [*] universe after our own least action consistent image, using the least action consistent mathematics. Our weight as [mg] and a force that we feel as [ma]. Both [g] and [a] represent acceleration. What does [m] represent? Mass? What does mass represent? An amount of matter? Since [g] with respect to the balance scale is a consequence of location, anywhere the balance scale can be used, when we define an object in units of weight [mg], the quantity the balance scale is comparing is the quantity mass [m], where the quantity we are comparing is the quantity weight [mg] which changes with location. That's pretty simple isn't it? When Galileo argued that all objects fall at the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same height {*} we were all amazed. We have remained amazed for the last 400 years. So amazed that we have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects really do fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m], when dropped at the same time at the same place from the same height (discounting air resistance). We are amazed because our primary but subjective functional use for the balance scale was and is to compare weight [mg]. Consequently we think that the balance scale compares weight [mg]. Where the action of the balance scale on balance equalizes the resistance of two non-uniform (or uniform) pans of atoms, where the quantity [g] divides out of the equation. Therefore the measure of the comparative resistance is in mass [m] units. This proved to be very convenient. This is not to say that we cannot use the balance scale for a large variety of purposes. Here I have simply pointed out that what we call gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence of location. Therefore with respect to the balance scale all objects MUST fall at the rate of [g] at a particular location.

jr writes>If no form of electric continually applied current passes through the center of the atom my position fails. If mass as measured on the balance scale is not a cumulative conserved comparative resistance of atoms my position fails. If we can isolate an electron object inside the atom my position fails. It turned out that quantum mechanics describes the atomic structure I propose. That was a convenient accident rather than a specific build by me to apply the math. If I cannot unseat gravity my position fails to even be entertained no matter what I do to it. I continue with the following Some 2000 years after the Ancient Greeks, Tycho Brahe's careful observations on the behavior of solar planetary bodies and Kepler's subsequent careful analysis of those observations revealed that the symmetry is in time and space. The predictable solar time-space least action consistent symmetry was subsequently co-opted by Isaac Newton, and used as the carrier for our tactile sense of attraction to the planet, quantified in terms of our least action consistent locally isolated (surface planet) "inertial mass" and regarded as the controlling cause of the order we observe in the celestial, least action consistent universe. This was heralded as Newton's great synthesis [*] and is so considered even today. Newton had no way of knowing that mass measured on the balance scale is the omparative cumulative resistance of atoms. Isaac Newton defined centripetal force in terms of his second law to act at a distance by setting his first law planet surface object on an imaginary circular path of motion at a uniform orbital speed. Newton allowed his moving (planet surface like object) to impact the internal side of the circle circumference at equidistant points to inscribe a regular polygon. He dropped a radius to the center of the circle from each vertex (B) of the polygon to describe any number of infinitely narrow equal area triangles. "...but when the body is arrived at (B), suppose that a centripetal force acts at once with a great impulse". Taking the length of each triangle base to the limit (approaching zero) the force vector [ma, mv/t, or dp/dt] at the vertex (B) is by definition directed along the radius toward the center of the circle as [mv^2/r][*]. Again, as with Ptolemy we have a perfect circle and perfect motion where here the law of areas clearly falls out as an artifact of the circle itself. Note that Newton arbitrarily inserted inertial mass [m] into the least action consistent equation for circular planetary motion. Newton generalized the equal areas in equal times artifact of the perfect circle uniform motion to any curved path directed radially around a point. "Every body that moves in any curve line... described by a radius drawn to a point... and describes about that point areas proportional to the times is urged by a centripetal force... to that point" Newton extended the property of his planet surface like orbiting object to all orbiting celestial bodies. "Every body that by a radius drawn to the center of another body.. and describes about that center areas proportional to the times, is urged by a force.." Newton then tied the force directly to the a priori force he felt and called gravity as [mg]. ... "For if a body by means of its gravity revolves in a circle concentric to the earth, this gravity is the centripetal force of that body." Newton brought his notion of gravity to the mathematics as an a priori fundamental given. And as the cause of his planetary centripetal force In short the force acted on any orbiting object as though that object is identical to Newton's first law planet surface object where the 2nd law force [ma] that Newton felt in response to resistance could then be proportioned to the areas and times of orbiting celestial bodies by virtue of the similar least action consistent behavior between the two. Where here Newton arbitrarily inserted the locally independently derived quantity of inertial mass as [ma] into the equation proportioning the least action consistent celestial universe to the independent locally derived planet surface least action consistent quantity inertial mass [m] as [ma] and [mg]. It has heretofore been a mystery to many as to why so called gravitational mass as [mg] is equal to inertial mass as [ma]. That is how Newton defined it. Essentially it states that what we feel [ma] is equal to what we feel [mg]. Totally reasonable. All that was supposedly left to do to calculate the mass of planets was to acquire a constant of proportionality [*] based on interactions between planet surface inertial mass objects and the planet using the brilliant mathematics supplied by Newton. This was eventually determined by Henry Cavendish by measuring minute magnitudes of torque from hanging balls that twisted a wire. So [mg=GMm/r^2] and [g=GM/r^2]. We still believe that the least action consistent motion in the universe is generated by mass and what we feel as [F] in response to a resistance we encounter [mg]. Where we feel the cumulative resistance of atoms at location [g]. The result is that the least action consistent universe is defined in terms of what we feel as [mg] and [ma] as least action consistent objects. A centrist view? He concluded that since it is true here it is true there. (paraphrased). Pretty reasonable thinking when the interior of planets was viewed according to Dante'. The least action consistent cosmological universe motion became geodesics with Einstein and are the result of gravity bending space-time. That gravity for a subjective force we feel and initiate in response to resistance we encounter sure has travelled a long long way. I try to convey definite precise ideas so that the word salad is not gibberish. All my math so far has been in the ball park range category. Once the preliminary word salad is in place (which is all I offer that is new) I will then have time to develop a math. Thanks.johnreed

On Aug 26 2010, 5:04 pm, thejohnlreed wrote: > Section 10 Einstein-Bose > johnreed > August 26, 2010 > > I have indicated that I intend to define atomic structure in terms of compacted electromagnetic fields. A place to start begins with two interlocked circles the circumference of each, passing orthogonally through the other’s center. Each circle represents an original single thread of say, tired light. > > The Einstein-Bose Condensate > So that, following the chained join, we may have one circle contract toward the join point (the opposing ends) of the other circle, while that other circle expands? This option is of prime interest to me at present. Both circles where one circle (the expanded circle) represents what becomes > electric current and the other circle (the contracted circle) represents what becomes its generated or binding magnetic field. > > Developing this construct as a build from rings (circles), the contracted ring(s) serving in place of the measured mass of the so called neutron(s) and proton(s), surrounding the dense section (think of the Hall effect) of the expanded (rarified) electron rings, that dense section serving also as a part of the measured mass of the so called proton and neutron core nucleus. The expanded, rarified ring(s) repulsively separating uniformly around the now nuclear binding rings as wave orbitals, filling shells. The expanded ring(s) in the outermost shell(s) can easily (as the atom's interface with it's surround) partially collapse to emit a single electron (think of the Josephson and von Klitzing measurements), and can easily break apart and straighten out, on the application of continuous electric current through the atomic center. > As temperature is decreased approaching absolute zero the inner shell expanded orbitals may spontaneously break apart to join the electric current to explain super-conduction. As the temperature continues to decrease or compression increases (events that are "generally always" opposite in our present "object-space" view for atomic structure) the innermost shell orbitals may also break apart and straighten out, to join the super conducting electric, current carrying inner shell orbitals of adjacent atoms, and ultimately, as a change of state, spontaneously (as a consequence solely of the temperature drop or severe compression) become a super conducting electric current condensate from many atoms, forming a composite current loop to complete a circuit, where the formerly individual atomic contracted binding rings, are again repulsed and gathered together on the composite current loop, allowing the composite current loop to break apart and arrange symmetrically as orbitals around the repulsed, but gathered from many atom's composite binding rings, to build, in the experimentally contained, temperature lowering case, the Einstein-Bose condensate (see johnreed take 6, 15, and addendum to same). > See post "johnreed take 23 - Dark Matter" for the proposed increased compression case. This is the general outline. Negative or positive charges can be inserted between the contracted and expanded rings to fit the periodic table data. The Einstein-Bose expectation is conceptually explained. I could develop the math here but it would be much better if someone else did. It is consistent with quantum mechanics (which isn't saying all that much). As the math can be made to fit almost any rational lwast action consistent proposal, Ptolemy for instance. What I have to do is first convince ya'll that gravity is a primitive idea of the most basic and fundamental centrist type. Before that is accomplished my work here will amount to nothing with or without the, what will be, a rather obvious direction for the mathematics of it. Have a good time. More to come until I am trashed. I have finished my posts that indicate where I am headed and will start with the various related and supportive stuff and a more definitive treatment of gravity. Ah yes word salad it is. My only responsibility here so far is rational communication. Have a good time.johnreed

Consider a pure element. On a balance scale, imagine that we can place one atom at a time from that pure element, in a pan. We have a standard weight calibrated in mass units in the other pan. We can (theoretically) place one pure element 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 [mg] at location [g] We feel at location [g], the cumulative resistance (mass) of the number of atoms in the pure element pan at that location. In this example the balance scale compares the resistance of a quantity of pure element atoms to the resistance of a quantity of matter calibrated in mass units. Each atom in the pure element pan is uniformly acted upon by the planet attractor. In the pure atom pan we are measuring the cumulative resistance of the number of atoms. We call this "mass", because we are measuring the cumulative comparative resistance of atoms in the pure element pan against the object in the pan calibrated in mass units. Is this uniform action on each atom a consequence of each atom being identical in the pure element? Or is it a consequence of the planet attractor's uniform action on atoms in general? The number of atoms in each of the described pans need not be the same. Is the mass of the calibrated object also the cumulative resistance of the atoms in that object? johnreed <br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> This is one of the places I am headed with my work on gravity beginning with a balamce scale. Most if not all of our present physical cosmological science is based on gravity. Most all of our physical mathematics is based on gravity. I will assume that my reader has some knowledge of the idea of black holes and white dwarfs and neutron stars and how they are supposedly formed and from this point I will introduce a completely different premise. I was originally working on atomic structure when my results forced me to question gravity. However for the purpose of this hopefully short dissertation I will start with the idea that super dense objects exist in the universe and for the moment we will say that gravity caused this. So for the purpose of this paper I am only going to argue that gravity is not controlling. A shade easier on my reader. I have written on this before and will include a part of a paper I wrote some years back. Its much easier on me this way. The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics Modified June 6, 2009, Reviewed March 15, 2011 John Lawrence Reed, Jr. Section 8 in part from: johnreed Take 23 - Dark Matter August 8, 2007 Modified 2009 The disparity in the measure of mass in distant galaxies, has caused us to propose a type of matter called the dark-matter. "Today most astronomers and physicists believe that this is the right answer to the puzzle. There is missing matter, which is actually there but which we don't see. This mysterious missing matter is referred to as the dark matter. The dark-matter hypothesis is preferred mostly because the only other possibility --- that we are wrong about Newton's laws, and by extension general relativity --- is too scary to contemplate." Quote taken from "The Trouble With Physics", 2005, Lee Smolin, PhD. In a previous post "johnreed Take 5.1" I introduced my earliest thinking on atomic structure. I looked at the planet orbits and I looked at the iron filings arrayed around a magnet. I shrunk that magnetic field down to two interlocking circles. From there I could construct an atom up to iron in a coherent diagramatic manner consistent with quantum mechanics. Once we have the efficient structure of the iron atom that evolves at the cores of stars, further efficiency appears to demand a constructive super compressed electromagnetic fusion process that occurs on the order of: [o+o=O] rather than [o+o=2o]. Eliminating internal atomic electron objects also modified the Pauli Principle. In effect my proposed atomic structure the "randaminor" (see take 25) led me to the formation of star cores, the "randamajor".. In other words the cores of stars do not collapse under gravitational force into self consuming singularities but rather join in a least action consistent counteraction to relentless pressure, in a compressed fusion process, and collapse as one giant space optimized atom whose spectra is shifted by size into the red. This core then acts in a manner similar to the theoretical activity attributed to black holes. The thrust of this idea is that under the extreme conditions of pressure that are believed to exist within star forming galactic clouds, the electromagnetic properties of the relentlessly compressed atoms control such that the internal atomic electromagnetic structure of each atom is aligned in the most efficient manner to preserve atomic integrity. Externally each atom shifts position, maximizing the efficiency of the stable internal structure. As the pressure continues to increase, the range of the efficiently ordered internal electromagnetic atomic fields extend beyond the physical limit of each atom, and as the atomic matter continues to compress, the aligned fields inside and outside the atom ultimately "constructively" join [1]. A collapse of the cloud core ensues, as the join of many electromagnetically optimized atoms, into one (or perhaps several) superatom(s), releases the less efficiently used, individual atomic, occupied space. The collapsed cloud core takes with it a surface covering of primarily, non-super condensed internal galactic cloud matter. This covering may include attendant, partially "efficient" condensed matter, that we see today as sun spots [3]. A shock wave results from this process such that much of the surface covering of the collapsed star core is blown away in (nearly) all directions in space. Much of this debris ultimately returns to the newly formed star, while much of it returns to the spatial location consistent with its origin, now far outside the surface of the collapsed cloud core, and passes around the star to be thrown into a distant star space orbit. The controlling process here is super-electromagnetic rather than gravitational (See johnreed Take 25). The creation of any or all atomic elements during the compression process may occur prior to the collapse and control of the most efficiently constructed atoms. Super "randamajor" electromagnetic current, and plasma polar arcs may extend from the collapsed cloud core and ultimately join near the plane of the ecliptic to complete a circuit. These polar arcs travel around the newly collapsed star to focus the formation of the inner planets along the plane of the ecliptic. From my rough guesstimates, based on the average diameter of atoms and nuclei, and on a varying diameter for the sun, such a collapse could free up at minimum, 96% of the space previously occupied by the individual atoms. Again by similar calculations, this could encompass a volume that extends minimally to the outermost terrestrial planets. This process replaces neutron stars, and blackholes. It also nicely incorporates all the exotic cosmology items we have so far observed, that I am aware of. The matter that we don't see (measure), and call dark or non-illuminating, or reflecting matter is, accounted for in part (or in full), by the super condensed “randamajor” matter inside the star cores. The reason we do not detect any gravitational signature here, is due to the same reason we cannot detect the so called gravitational waves. We are looking for the wrong evidence. Gravitational waves do not exist. Yes so far all I have been presenting is word salad to some. But then the words that result from your gravitationally based math are black holes, event horizons, singularities and big bangs. Things that make no sense whatsoever without your rather primitive belief in a universe controlling gravitational attraction based on quantities that you feel anywhere you can go. Building stable matter out of unstable shards of matter that result from destroying stable matter through the crude approach of head on collisions just seemed to me to be unnending. How many unstable states of matter can we generate just by changing initial conditions? Until my stuff gets tossed into the trash I have a whole lot more word salad for you. Ya'll started with gravity and particles. So did I actually until my results forced me to deal with electromagnetics and two chained circles. Which provides a novel explanation (word salad) for Einstein-Bose. I'll send that one next. Have a good time folks.johnreed

The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics Modified June 6, 2009, Reviewed March 15, 2011 John Lawrence Reed, Jr. Section 8 in part from: johnreed Take 23 - Dark Matter August 8, 2007 Modified 2009 The disparity in the measure of mass in distant galaxies, has caused us to propose a type of matter called the dark-matter. "Today most astronomers and physicists believe that this is the right answer to the puzzle. There is missing matter, which is actually there but which we don't see. This mysterious missing matter is referred to as the dark matter. The dark-matter hypothesis is preferred mostly because the only other possibility --- that we are wrong about Newton's laws, and by extension general relativity --- is too scary to contemplate." Quote taken from "The Trouble With Physics", 2005, Lee Smolin, PhD. In a previous post "johnreed Take 5.1" I introduced my earliest thinking on atomic structure. I looked at the planet orbits and I looked at the iron filings arrayed around a magnet. I shrunk that magnetic field down to two interlocking circles. From there I could construct an atom up to iron in a coherent diagramatic manner consistent with quantum mechanics. Once we have the efficient structure of the iron atom that evolves at the cores of stars, further efficiency appears to demand a constructive super compressed electromagnetic fusion process that occurs on the order of: [o+o=O] rather than [o+o=2o]. Eliminating internal atomic electron objects also modified the Pauli Principle. In effect my proposed atomic structure the "randaminor" (see take 25) led me to the formation of star cores, the "randamajor".. In other words the cores of stars do not collapse under gravitational force into self consuming singularities but rather join in a least action consistent counteraction to relentless pressure, in a compressed fusion process, and collapse as one giant space optimized atom whose spectra is shifted by size into the red. This core then acts in a manner similar to the theoretical activity attributed to black holes. The thrust of this idea is that under the extreme conditions of pressure that are believed to exist within star forming galactic clouds, the electromagnetic properties of the relentlessly compressed atoms control such that the internal atomic electromagnetic structure of each atom is aligned in the most efficient manner to preserve atomic integrity. Externally each atom shifts position, maximizing the efficiency of the stable internal structure. As the pressure continues to increase, the range of the efficiently ordered internal electromagnetic atomic fields extend beyond the physical limit of each atom, and as the atomic matter continues to compress, the aligned fields inside and outside the atom ultimately "constructively" join [1]. A collapse of the cloud core ensues, as the join of many electromagnetically optimized atoms, into one (or perhaps several) superatom(s), releases the less efficiently used, individual atomic, occupied space. The collapsed cloud core takes with it a surface covering of primarily, non-super condensed internal galactic cloud matter. This covering may include attendant, partially "efficient" condensed matter, that we see today as sun spots [3]. A shock wave results from this process such that much of the surface covering of the collapsed star core is blown away in (nearly) all directions in space. Much of this debris ultimately returns to the newly formed star, while much of it returns to the spatial location consistent with its origin, now far outside the surface of the collapsed cloud core, and passes around the star to be thrown into a distant star space orbit. The controlling process here is super-electromagnetic rather than gravitational (See johnreed Take 25). The creation of any or all atomic elements during the compression process may occur prior to the collapse and control of the most efficiently constructed atoms. Super "randamajor" electromagnetic current, and plasma polar arcs may extend from the collapsed cloud core and ultimately join near the plane of the ecliptic to complete a circuit. These polar arcs travel around the newly collapsed star to focus the formation of the inner planets along the plane of the ecliptic. From my rough guesstimates, based on the average diameter of atoms and nuclei, and on a varying diameter for the sun, such a collapse could free up at minimum, 96% of the space previously occupied by the individual atoms. Again by similar calculations, this could encompass a volume that extends minimally to the outermost terrestrial planets. This process replaces neutron stars, and blackholes. It also nicely incorporates all the exotic cosmology items we have so far observed, that I am aware of. The matter that we don't see (measure), and call dark or non-illuminating, or reflecting matter is, accounted for in part (or in full), by the super condensed “randamajor” matter inside the star cores. The reason we do not detect any gravitational signature here, is due to the same reason we cannot detect the so called gravitational waves. We are looking for the wrong evidence. Gravitational waves do not exist. johnreed Moderators If this appears too bizarre even for speculation then put it in another category where I can build on it as well as take criticism from it. The above is a shortened intro on this topic. I have included it in raw form with little supporting logic and no quantitative rigor. I have seen the most lame ideas you can imagine supported by some kind of gravitationally based math. To keep it brief for your benefit I give the idea. Your belief in gravity will prevent most of you from seriously entertaining this initially. It grows on you the more you think about it. Anyway if this is not rejected I will continue. Thanks for reading it in any event. johnreed

jr writes> I apologize for the non standard vocabulary. I took a different path from day one and have had to learn the vocabulary of mainstream science as I go. But my initial arguments here are simple and involve the meaning of words like mass and the function of simple machines like a balance scale. Take the idea of a constant of proportionality. Where K is a constant of proportionality for T^2/r^3. I grasp that perfectly clear. G on the other hand is a constant of proportionality that purports to assign masses to planets based on our measure of mass here and Newton's basic assumption that since its true here its true there. Paraphrased. I think that our acceptance of G as a constant magnitude is shaky in this day and time. Einstein just in this case set what has been known and perplexing to us as a principle. It doesn't make G any the more correct. But I am getting way ahead of my little patch of ground I'm trying to carve out here. Yes all I am trying to say is apparently already accepted in part. That the planet attractor acts on atoms. Swanson That applies to all formulas, though. We can't be sure of electrostatics, because k could be different. The fine structure constant could be different. But then one would have a hard time explaining many, many observations, because we see a consistency in atomic spectra from distant sources. jr writes> Atomic spectra is electromagnetic. The displacement of distant stars along our line of vision near the Sun was and as far as I know, still is, attributed to gravity (lensing). It is a possibility that if classical conserved object mass cannot be accurately proportioned dynamically to least action consistent star and planet masses niether can it be proportioned to the least action consistent sub atomic regions below protons, neutrons and electrons outside of a fill in for least action consistent equations proportioned to classical magnitudes of least action consistent mass. Swanson Add to this that a change in G over space implies a loss of translation symmetry, which implies that momentum is not a conserved quantity. jr writes 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 uniform 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 but least action consistent 2 body orbital motion. It's consistent with least action time-space parameters where the emergent conserved cumulative resistance of planet and moon surface atoms is either proportioned to (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. So the ideas for locally measured linear momentum magnitudes remain viable but our starting points to proportion local mass magnitudes from (planet surface object mass and G) do not necessarily apply beyond the frame of their origin. It may be just an advanced form of "cargo cult" science, where we duplicate the least action consistent orbital motion (Kepler) using the force we apply and then assign that force to the entire universe because we can take it with us wherever we go. Thanks for your time and effort and any corrections you can apply. Have a good time. johnreed

jr writes> I have copied and pasted the above because it deserves A clear and comprehensive reply. I draw a distinction between linear and angular momentum that is critical here. Thanks for holding that rifle at bay. I will return soon. johnreed

jr writes> I apologize for the non standard vocabulary. I took a different path from day one and have had to learn the vocabulary of mainstream science as I go. But my initial arguments here are simple and involve the meaning of words like mass and the function of simple machines like a balance scale. Take the idea of a constant of proportionality. Where K is a constant of proportionality for T^2/r^3. I grasp that perfectly clear. G on the other hand is a constant of proportionality that purports to assign masses to planets based on our measure of mass here and Newton's basic assumption that since its true here its true there. Paraphrased. I think that our acceptance of G as a constant magnitude is shaky in this day and time. Einstein just in this case set what has been known and perplexing to us a a principle. It doesn't make G any the more correct. But I am getting way ahead of my little patch of ground I'm trying to carve out here. Yes all I am trying to say is apparently already accepted in part. That the planet attractor axts on atoms. I hope I've done this correctly. Have a good time everyone and thanks for not shooting me out of water yet. johnreed Hit wrong button

jr writes> Talk about word salad. Who said we don't feel gravity? That is precisely what we feel gravity and we define it in terms of what we feel [mg] and call it force. It is force to us and it is equal and opposite to the resistance we encounter. That resistance is caused by the planet's attraction on atoms which is uniform for all atoms. That is what I say. Please quote me otherwise. The above is the subject of my most recent posts. I can add direction to that substance in a very general way using few words. Please do not consider this paragraph a statement I am arguing at thr present time. But let conjecture that what we call gravity does not collapse into a black hole but instead the electromagnetic properties of atoms constructively combine to commandeer the core of the collapsed star to create an electromagnetic dynamo that attracts all form of matter at a certain distance and leaves shells of matter that coalesce into planets. The collapse is accompanied by an explosion that sends star parts everywhere. These star parts eventually return to their origin but their origin location is gon and so they pass closely around the star and are thrown back into their distant orbit. This is just conjecture for now and won't be entertained seriously until all my preliminary arguments are worked out so thy are clear to all. But I have always sought assistance. johnreed jr writes: I have no argument with this. We can also say that mg=GMm/r^2 where [m] divides out leaving g=GM/r^2. That's fine. But where do you get it that [M] divides out? And once you divide [m] out all you are left with is least action consistent motion. But I am not arguing this right now. In fact I've got to revisit my original few paragraphs to remind myself what I am arguing for. Thank you for not shooting me out of the water. Jr writes> I might be getting my sea legs here a bit better. No what I say is that the planet acts on all atoms uniformly, That allows us to measure the resistance of each pan of atoms in a conserved unit we call mass. In fact if the planet did not act on all atoms uniformly and instead acted on object mass we could never have evolved. I apologize for my non-standard terminology. Resistance has a specific meaning in physics and force does as well. We act on resistance and we feel a force that is equal and opposite to the resistance we act on anywhere in the universe we can occupy. But the force is initiated by us and is not a property of inanimate objects. johnreed jr writes> Rereading this comment you are taking freefall as an example where we don't feel gravity. I agree. In freefall we are traveling in the direction our atoms are being pulled. However when we accelerate against the pull on our atoms we feel this pull and we call it gravity. When we are in contact with a non-freefalling object we also feel the pull on our atoms. Sorry I think I mis read your original paragraph. People do it all the time.

jr writes> Again I apologize for my lack of clarity. I am saying that the planet attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. We measure the resistance of atoms on the balance scale and we call this mass. The planet attractor acts on all objects uniformly and on all atoms uniformly. When we lift an object we are acting on the cumulative resistance of the atoms that the planet acts on uniformly. Gravity is the force we feel and it is equivalent to the resistance of the atoms we lift at location. That resistance is caused by the planet's uniform action on atoms. Which action then becomes electromagnetic of a type we feel as gravity. To carry it further here. In sum gravity is a form of electromagnetism that acts on all atoms comparatively weakly (wrt our experience) but originates from the planet core electromagnetic nature. This last paragraph is not part of this post as it is too speculative so far. I'm trying to work out the ground rules only here. So if you shoot me out of the water let your aim destroy this paragraph. Thanks. johnreed

jr writes> I'm sorry. I don't follow your change. In equal and opposite terms we have mg(gold) = Mg(Earth) where the slack is taken up in the magnitude of [g]. Is that not correct? Since mg(gold) here has been measured as (N) and since [mg] is equivalent to a Force [F] we feel. we say that the force we feel is the force of gravity which acts between all objects as an attraction in an equal and opposite manner. We say (again) that the huge discrepancy is taken up by the miniscule magnitude of [g] in [Mg]. Is this not correct? So I want to know what [mg] represents. Well it represents weight and we have used the balance scale for 6000 years to compare weight. So as far as we are concerned the balance scale compares weight. We use it to compare the weights of atoms. One group of atoms in one pan another group in another pan. They can all be uniform or they can all be different. In either case, on the balance scale the quantity [g] divides out at any location the balance scale is functional and we are left with one pan of atoms balancing another pan of atoms. We standardize one of the pans into mass units and we are measuring the comparative resistance of two pans of atoms which we call mass. WE are comparing weight. The balance scale is comparing the resistance of atoms. This resistance is conserved in the classical frame. Weight changes with location in the classical frame. Weight changes according to the magnitude of [g]. Weight happens to coincide with what we feel. So what we feel changes where mass remains the same. But what we feel in all cases is the resistance of atoms to our effort which depends on the pull on those atoms and not on their comparative resistance as measured on the balance scale. For sure I have been stumbling. That seems to be all I ever do. Ever now and then I stumble into something I have to examine. The poe. What does it mean? The force we feel is equivalent to the force we feel ma=mg and so the force we feel controls the least action consistent universe? Just because we feel the units we measure it by? Thanks for your sincere answer. I hope I don't discourage you. johnreed

What do I mean by resistance of atoms? On the balance scale we compare one pan of atoms to another pan of atoms. We use units of weight mg. So we are comparing weight. However [g] is acting on the balance scale itself and on each pan so [g] divides out of the equation as far as the balance scale operation is concerned. The balance scale compares the resistance of pans of atoms in units we call mass. This comparison is invariant unlike the comparison of weight which changes with location

Although we can treat any object we lift as a blob and say that the planet acts on the blob with an equal and opposite force to the one we exert, let's define our blob a bit more precisely. Let's say we have 1 gram atom of Gold. This is the relative atomic weight of gold in grams. Let's call that weight x so here so far we have mg gold=x. Let's take the weight of the earth as X. So we have Mg earth as X. So in terms of equal and opposite force we have x=X. But since 1 gram atom of gold equals (N) atoms of gold or Avogadro's number. We have the resistance of (N) atoms of gold equal to the resistance of all the atoms in the Earth. Where it appears to me that the resistance of (N) atoms of gold here is only equal and opposite to the force we exert and has nothing to do with the force the planet exerts other than as a convenience for our successful navigation through the universe in terms that originate with us. How does the planet's cumulative atom Resistance = a cumulative resistance we feel with something we lift, if the planet does not act on all atoms uniformly?

jr writes> This is concluding a critique and suggests an avenue that I will and have taken. I did not say it was electrostatic. I suggested a form of electromagnetism. Which form we feel as gravity. Also something I did not write. Other forms we feel when we are electrocuted. But that is all coming one segment at a time. I ask you: Why posit a force you feel as the force that the universe initiates in the units you feel it? Could you not just as well feel the resistance [mg] as a consequence of a uniform attraction on non-uniform atoms? So in one of my starting frames I entertain the balance scale and its function. In another I entertain the third law. It's a step at a time and it is no easy endeavor. I will try to keep confusing closing comments out of them. Thanks for pulling my coat. Every little bit helps to assist my direction. I don't want to appear to hi jack one string to initiate another. However these are all related to the above so while here I will include another segment. Please just delete it if it violates policy. And I hope I have not included this here earlier. Plain English Physics 101-2 Excerpts from Published under new title Modified Monday, May 21, 2012 johnlawrencereed jr Excerpt on the balance scale: Mass [m] is a magnitude of comparative resistance taken, in the simplest case, at location on a balance scale using units of weight [mg] where [g] continually divides out of the balance operation. At any location that we place a balance scale (as long as the balance scale is operational at that location), the function of [g] will be immaterial to the balance scale action. Wherever we place the balance scale the magnitude of [g] as a factor of the product weight [mg], will be the same on each pan regardless of the mass magnitudes placed on the pans[*]. Therefore on the balance scale the quantity [m] is derived and conserved. On the balance scale the quantity [g] is a consequence of location. Therefore the balance scale compares the resistance of atoms (matter) independent of location when we use the objective quantitative units for resistance that are consistent with our subjective definition of force [mg]. We think we have proved that a universal force [mg] that we feel and 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 as [ma] and what we call gravitational mass [mg] are equivalent with respect to the celestial universe because they are equivalent with respect to what we measure, define and feel as our weight [mg] and what we measure, define and feel as force [ma]. [F=ma] [F=mg] Since the resistance that we feel as gravitational Force [mg] may also be quantitatively defined as [ma] where relative (comparative) mass resistance [m] is derived and conserved and [g] is an independent property of location, we think that the entire universe can be explained in terms of the resistance that we feel as [mg]. We think that we have "proved" that what we feel and call "gravity" [mg], is the cause of the celestial universe motion. So that the changing magnitudes for [g] external to the balance scale are a consequence of the resistance that we feel [mg] rather than that resistance [mg] being a consequence of our location in space. To rephrase it: We think that the changing magnitudes for [g] are a consequence of gravity (the resistance that we feel) rather than gravity (the resistance that we feel) being a consequence of our location in space. It should be clear that the changing magnitudes for [g] are not a consequence of the resistance that we feel [mg] and so not a consequence of gravity. However we have set the resistance that we feel as [mg] as a Force [F] that we feel and we have assigned that Force [F] that we feel as initiated by the planet in units that are equivalent to the resistance that we feel [mg]. johnreed

I did not intend on hi jacking another post for this. Please do not think that I am intentionally disrespecting your rules. Plain English Physics 101-4 Excerpts from Published under new title Modified Monday, May 21, 2012 johnlawrencereed jr Excerpt on Newton: In any event, our problem did not begin with J.J. Thompson. Some 2000 years after the Ancient Greeks, Tycho Brahe's careful observations on the behavior of celestial planetary bodies and Kepler's subsequent careful analysis of those observations revealed that the symmetry is in time and space. The predictable solar time-space least action consistent symmetry was subsequently co-opted by Isaac Newton, and used as the carrier for our tactile sense of attraction to the planet, quantified in terms of our least action consistent locally isolated (surface planet) "inertial mass" and regarded as the controlling cause of the order we observe in the celestial, least action consistent universe. This was heralded as Newton's great synthesis [*] and is so considered even today. Isaac Newton defined centripetal force in terms of his second law to act at a distance by setting his first law planet surface object on an imaginary circular path of motion at a uniform orbital speed. Newton allowed his moving (planet surface like object) to impact the internal side of the circle circumference at equidistant points to inscribe a regular polygon. He dropped a radius to the center of the circle from each vertex (B) of the polygon to describe any number of equal area triangles. "...but when the body is arrived at (B), suppose that a centripetal force acts at once with a great impulse". Taking the length of each triangle base to the limit (approaching zero) the force vector [ma, mv/t, or dp/dt] at the vertex (B) is by definition directed along the radius toward the center of the circle as [mv^2/r][*]. Again, as with Ptolemy we have a perfect circle and perfect motion where here the law of areas clearly falls out as an artifact of the circle itself. Note that Newton arbitrarily inserted inertial mass [m] into the least action consistent equation for circular planetary motion. Newton generalized the equal areas in equal times artifact of the perfect circle uniform motion to any curved path directed radially around a point. "Every body that moves in any curve line... described by a radius drawn to a point... and describes about that point areas proportional to the times is urged by a centripetal force... to that point" Newton extended the property of his planet surface like orbiting object to all orbiting celestial bodies. "Every body that by a radius drawn to the center of another body.. and describes about that center areas proportional to the times, is urged by a force.." Newton then tied the force directly to the a priori force he felt and called gravity as [mg]. ... "For if a body by means of its gravity revolves in a circle concentric to the earth, this gravity is the centripetal force of that body." Newton brought his notion of gravity to the mathematics as an a priori fundamental given. And as the cause of his planetary centripetal force In short the force acted on any orbiting object as though that object is identical to Newton's first law planet surface object where the 2nd law force [ma] could then be proportioned to the areas and times of orbiting celestial bodies. Where here Newton arbitrarily inserted the locally independently derived quantity of inertial mass as [ma] into the equation proportioning the least action consistent celestial universe to the independent locally derived planet surface least action consistent quantity inertial mass [m] as [ma]. It has heretofore been a mystery to many as to why so called gravitational mass as [mg] is equal to inertial mass as [ma]. That is how Newton defined it. The result is that the least action consistent universe is defined in terms of what we feel as [mg] and [ma] as least action consistent objects. How's that for a centrist view? All that was supposedly left to do to calculate the mass of planets was to acquire a constant of proportionality [*] based on interactions between planet surface inertial mass objects and the planet using the mathematics supplied by Newton. This was eventually determined by Henry Cavendish by measuring minute magnitudes of torque from hanging balls that twisted a wire that could just as easily and better be explained by unseen electromagnetic causes. johnreed

Plain English Physics 101-1 Excerpts from Published under new title Modified Monday, May 21, 2012 johnlawrencereed jr Excerpt on Ptolemy: Where Wigner noted the "uncanny" usefulness of mathematics, I noted that the usefulness remains, regardless of the veracity of our a priori assumptions. As an example, first consider the Ptolemaic, Earth centered model of the solar system. The sole quantitative connection to the real universe in this "still useful" model is the efficient, least action, time-space property, attendant to each of the otherwise contrived, circular, cyclic and epi-cyclic orbits. A circle is an efficient enclosure of area. Equal arc lengths will radially enclose equal areas of the circle. This is an efficient area enclosing property of the circle itself. It is consistent with Kepler's law of areas which law would be redundant in the case of perfectly circular uniform orbits. With the circle it is the circumference arc and its radially enclosed area. With the orbit it is the time interval of the orbit trajectory and its radially enclosed area. The law of areas is a function involving time and space. It is a least action function. So Ptolemy constructed several imaginary mathematical least action consistent circles[*] upon circles to match the time space function of the real orbits. The least action consistent aspect of the mathematics in describing the least action consistent aspects of stable universe systems, assured his success. Imagine it otherwise. The Ptolemaic model shows that accurate mathematical predictions serve us to a limited operational extent, but provide no absolute basis for an accurate conceptual view. Viewed through the clearer lens of hindsight here, we can see that our conceptual questions must be framed correctly, prior to accepting a physical reality for the mathematical model. Must we frame our conceptual questions any less correctly today? johnreed

jr writes> Since my support of machines that produce more energy than our present conservation laws provide as possible has deemed me a speculator after I provide a rational argument on apparently unrelated topics... I will continue in the speculation department Plain English Physics 101-4 Excerpts from Published under new title Modified Monday, May 21, 2012 johnlawrencereed jr Excerpt on Newton: In any event, our problem did not begin with J.J. Thompson. Some 2000 years after the Ancient Greeks, Tycho Brahe's careful observations on the behavior of celestial planetary bodies and Kepler's subsequent careful analysis of those observations revealed that the symmetry is in time and space. The predictable solar time-space least action consistent symmetry was subsequently co-opted by Isaac Newton, and used as the carrier for our tactile sense of attraction to the planet, quantified in terms of our least action consistent locally isolated (surface planet) "inertial mass" and regarded as the controlling cause of the order we observe in the celestial, least action consistent universe. This was heralded as Newton's great synthesis [*] and is so considered even today. Isaac Newton defined centripetal force in terms of his second law to act at a distance by setting his first law planet surface object on an imaginary circular path of motion at a uniform orbital speed. Newton allowed his moving (planet surface like object) to impact the internal side of the circle circumference at equidistant points to inscribe a regular polygon. He dropped a radius to the center of the circle from each vertex (B) of the polygon to describe any number of equal area triangles. "...but when the body is arrived at (B), suppose that a centripetal force acts at once with a great impulse". Taking the length of each triangle base to the limit (approaching zero) the force vector [ma, mv/t, or dp/dt] at the vertex (B) is by definition directed along the radius toward the center of the circle as [mv^2/r][*]. Again, as with Ptolemy we have a perfect circle and perfect motion where here the law of areas clearly falls out as an artifact of the circle itself. Note that Newton arbitrarily inserted inertial mass [m] into the least action consistent equation for circular planetary motion. Newton generalized the equal areas in equal times artifact of the perfect circle uniform motion to any curved path directed radially around a point. "Every body that moves in any curve line... described by a radius drawn to a point... and describes about that point areas proportional to the times is urged by a centripetal force... to that point" Newton extended the property of his planet surface like orbiting object to all orbiting celestial bodies. "Every body that by a radius drawn to the center of another body.. and describes about that center areas proportional to the times, is urged by a force.." Newton then tied the force directly to the a priori force he felt and called gravity as [mg]. ... "For if a body by means of its gravity revolves in a circle concentric to the earth, this gravity is the centripetal force of that body." Newton brought his notion of gravity to the mathematics as an a priori fundamental given. And as the cause of his planetary centripetal force In short the force acted on any orbiting object as though that object is identical to Newton's first law planet surface object where the 2nd law force [ma] could then be proportioned to the areas and times of orbiting celestial bodies. Where here Newton arbitrarily inserted the locally independently derived quantity of inertial mass as [ma] into the equation proportioning the least action consistent celestial universe to the independent locally derived planet surface least action consistent quantity inertial mass [m] as [ma]. It has heretofore been a mystery to many as to why so called gravitational mass as [mg] is equal to inertial mass as [ma]. That is how Newton defined it. The result is that the least action consistent universe is defined in terms of what we feel as [mg] and [ma] as least action consistent objects. How's that for a centrist view? All that was supposedly left to do to calculate the mass of planets was to acquire a constant of proportionality [*] based on interactions between planet surface inertial mass objects and the planet using the mathematics supplied by Newton. This was eventually determined by Henry Cavendish by measuring minute magnitudes of torque from hanging balls that twisted a wire that could just as easily and better be explained by unseen electromagnetic causes. Rather than delete it let me provide the above to further embarass my kids and their kids etc. If I am responding out of accepted protocol please advise. Thanks. johnreed

Plain English Physics 101-5 Excerpts from: Published under new title Modified Friday, June 15, 2012 johnlawrencereed jr Excerpt on Avogadro's Number: I have defined mass as the conserved comparative resistance of non-uniform (and uniform) atoms in response to and as a consequence of a uniform attraction on all atoms (see Part 1, this publication). We get close to this when we measure amounts of atoms or molecules in moles as we optimize our chemical reactions. The relative atomic weight of an atom expressed in grams as weight [mg] using the periodic chart represents one mole of that element. Although we call this an atomic weight [mg] one mole of an element represents a specific number of atoms. That number is Avogadro's Number 6.0221415 × 10^23. That number represents the number of atoms in a gram atom, or the gram atomic number of an element. Straight from the Periodic Table we have the gram atomic number of each element that is equivalent to the weight of 6.0221415 x 10^23 atoms of that element expressed in grams at location. The balance scale measures the comparative resistance [m] of atoms which we interpret in units of weight [mg]. Weight will vary with location but the comparative resistance of a number of atoms is invariant with location. In this case that number of atoms is designated as 1 mole of an element and the chemical numerical notation proportionally references moles of elements. This number is consistent with grams but is also consistent with any other standard unit we might use to measure resistance on the balance scale and/or in impact experiments. To keep it simple the gram atomic number of Hydrogen can be represented roughly as 1. Oxygen then, represented roughly is 16. We have 2 gram atoms of Hydrogen and one gram atom of Oxygen as the chemical representation for water H2O. Each gram atom is equivalent to 6.0221415 x 10^23 atoms of the element. They are the proportional amounts using weight [mg] that are reacted to make water H2O. Here each Mole of water consists of 6.0221415 x 10^23 water molecules. Avogadro's Number [N] in this case (the periodic table) is a constant of proportionality for the stable atomic chemical formulation of the elemental compounds when represented in units (moles) that we measure as weight [mg]. We say 2 moles of hydrogen combined with 1 mole of oxygen is the chemical composition of water [H2O]. Or we can say 1 mole of Hydrogen combined with .5 moles of Oxygen is the chemical composition of water [H2O]. Any proportional amount of the number of atoms of each element using Avogadro's number as the reference will provide an invariant platform that is independent of location. Electrolysis and separation confirms this as measured on a balance scale in units of mass [m] as [mg] weight. Here [m] is the comparative conserved resistance and [mg] is the comparative weight taken at location [g].. The atomic number of an element is expressed in gram atoms or moles. The Periodic Chart arranges the elements in Mass units that represent a specific number of atoms for each element. This is Avogadro's number. So when we determine that water has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom and this is expressed in mass units that represent a near precise number of atoms (moles) our Periodic Table represents the relative resistance of each element in mass units (moles) that define the number of atoms of each element as a unit multiple of Avogadro's number, at any location in the universe. Note that we are dealing with an invariant number of atoms and we use the variant weight [mg] which applies here and is functional at any location in space. However, on the balance scale [g] is a consequence of location and divides out of the equation. In other words the weight of the atoms change according to location but the number of atoms and their comparative resistance is invariant with respect to location. The constant objective factor here is the comparative resistance [m] of the number of atoms. Not the subjective comparative weight (what we feel) [mg] (that depends on location) of a number of atoms. Using a balance scale Mass is a convenient means by which we can represent the comparative resistance of a number of uniform and non-uniform atoms acted upon uniformly by the planet attractor. Consequently our effort we call force [F] set equivalent to [mg] cannot be generalized as an equal and opposite effort by the planet. It is mass resistance [m] in motion that we feel as Force [mg] and [ma], and experience as momentum [mv]. Inanimate objects exert no effort and feel no force. Mass [m] resistance is invariant and Force [F] as we have defined it is based on what we feel anywhere in the universe (anywhere we can occupy) which is variant with [g] in [mg]. All atoms fall at the same rate. The planet attractor acts uniformly on atoms. 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 simple error. When we define mass in terms of a number of atoms, the occult aspect of equal and opposite forces between planet surface objects and planets vanish. The resistance of a planet surface object when defined in terms of weight and quantified in terms of a number of atoms can hardly be set equivalent to the resistance of the atoms composing the planet. The consolidating piece of this part of the puzzle came from the recognition that I could show that gravity acts on atoms using the principle that is the basis for the Periodic Table. It took me years to put it together and it was right in front of me all along. johnreed Google has trashed my capability to examine and respond to comments and questions using its interface to groups. Half of my screen is locked into the advertising crap they use to force one to comply with their new changes. I tried to comply there and the entire format is foreign and unacceptable to me. Therefore any questions or comments should be directed to the group below. Which is also a Google platform so I cannot be certain that it will continue to function. Thanks. If you respond to this publication take care. Try to avoid embarrassing your descendants. What I am providing will function in one case as a segue for the foundation which will direct positive attention to what have sometimes been called anti-gravity machines. Once we recognize that gravity is what we feel, gravity will be eliminated as a standard on which to base our theoretical mathematics which presently define conservation laws. Once mass is recognized as a convenient conserved representation for the comparative resistance of numbers of atoms, the conservation of mass and energy will extend beyond our subjective methods of interpretation and machines that function within the new interpretation will not be burdened with the dogma of the past. End. johnreed Current web address: http://groups.google...oup/thejohnreed

jr wrote "If [g] in the expession [mg] for weight is a consequence of location then all atoms must fall at the rate of [g] at that location. Forget pressing air. Think vacuum." Moneypoo questioned the meaning and DrRocket questioned the effectiveness of my reply. So I returned to my quote above. Altho it is based on the balance scale... it also requires a vacuum. My response was off point. Thank you.

You say that mass is not responsible for gravity. You also say that mass does not generate the force of attraction. jr writes> Gravity [mg] is a force that we feel. Mass [m] is a conserved comparative resistance of "objects" or "bodies" or "blobs" we can quantify. If our definition of mass derives from the force that we feel [mg] then objects, bodies and blobs are all equally specific. If we say that Fg=mg what exactly is generating the force of gravity? jr writes> If you are saying that [Fg=mg] you are saying that [mg^2=mg]. How do you define [g] as unity? On what basis? There must be a gravitational field but what generates this? Jr writes> Your logic for there "must be" a field based on what we feel, is over my head. Since all "blobs" fall at the same rate then atoms also fall at the same rate. It is difficult to weigh one atom on the balance scale at a time so we use Avogadro's number and moles to do the job. So atoms are legitimate substitutes for bodies, objects and blobs. If the attraction is on atoms then our gravitational field becomes a construct we use to navigate through a type of electromagnetic field that we don't feel in the way we feel the electromagnetism we are familiar with which we directly feel when we are being electrocuted. Such a field can derive from a form of electromagnetism that acts on all blobs rather than only objects with internally and externally alligned atoms. It depends on the internal dynamics of stars and some planets and maybe some objects that qualify as moons. Which dynamics as we have projected them are based on the force we feel and call gravity. We know from Newtons laws that Fg= G*m1m1/d^2. jr writes> Please explain the expression [mg^2]. Newton is my main idol and Feynman is number 2. So it is with great defernce and respect that I point out the following. Newton's first law gave us linear and single object spin angular momentum. It did not give us two body orbit angular momentum. Newton derived two body orbital angular momentum by applying perfectly circular spin angular momentum to Kepler's law of areas. They are both least action consistent and rely on our measure of comparative mass which with respect to Newton conjectured "If it is true here it is true everywhere". This was in the time of Dante' and Newton was a believer. Newton's third law gave us the equal and opposite idea for force. Since what we lift can be quantified as resistance [mg] and is equal to a force we feel [F] by definition [F=mg]. We can call the force we feel [mg] a force that is generated by the planet. However we are alive and animate and have the propensity to "feel" through our tactile sense. The planet feels nothing I assume. So the planet can be acting uniformly on non-uniform atoms which we exert an effort to lift. The propotional constant G= 6.678*10-11 is known as the universal gravitational constant. This constant of proportionality is taken from the comparative measure of the behavior of planet surface object mass. Initially using a device that measured the torque between two planet surface objects. All natural motion is least action consistent. Mass operates independent of celestial object motion so it can be applied to that motion with impunity based on our conjecture that if it is true here it is true there. I give you that. In fact I already gave you that. This force tends to pull objects towards each other. If we manipulate these equations we find that g= fg/m = GMm/md^2 = GM/d^2. Let us add values. g = (6.67*10^-11)(5.98*10^24)/(6370*10^3)^2 = 9.83m/s^2. These values are the mass of the Earth and the distance of the center of mass to the surface of Earth. If you change the mass of the object you see that the strength of the gravitational field changes. jr writes> If I accept the notion that if it's true here it's true there I would have to agree altho' I still have difficulty with [mg^2/m = [g]. Again please explain. This illustates that the force of gravity is dependent on the mass of the object. jr writes> I have shown on the balance scale that [m] and [g] are distincly separate where [g] controls and [m] obeys without effect until collision which is where we come into it. It is easy to think of examples. When we landed on the moon, which has less mass than the Earth, its gravitational fie ld is much weaker than here on Earth. If we go to visit the sun the gravity will crush us. If mass did not aid in determining the strength of gravity then theoretically everything would have the same gravitational pull. jr writes> I did not say that mass did not aid in determining the strength of the force that we feel. I did say that gravity is a force that we feel and that mass is the comparative measure of pans full of non-uniform atoms. So that the attraction is a uniform attraction on non-uniform atoms which is a more massive form of electromagnetism that acts comparatively weakly on ALL atoms. Einstein worked out a notion for a uniform gravitational field based on our perception of visual events. If we think in terms of Einstein he illustrated that mass bends space. jr writes> He predicted that light bends near large objects and the Englishman (his name is momentarily lost to me) eagerly confirmed the displacement. Our line of vision is easily displaced by many things. Rising heat from the desert displaces our horizontal vision but has no effect on our vision from space. On the other hand strong electromagnetic fields can displace our line of vision in a quantifiable manner. Attributing strong electromagnetic fields to the force we feel is just another form of defining the universe after our own image. If you want to go into an argument about what gravity really is we can. If we deny that mass does not play a fundamental role in determining the force of attraction between objects we are blind. jr writes> I won't argue on paper. I will explain on paper. You say we aquired mass initially from the definition of [mg] and [ma]? How exactly if we already have m in the equation? You cannot have a force if there is no mass? Mass is determined atomically and we can relate a large mass to have a center of mass but this is a different topic. jr writes> I said that mass is quantifiable and derived from the objective quantifiable measure of [mg]. This was long before atoms were an accepted item which were not accepted until Einstein's paper on Brownian motion coupled with his 4 other paper in 1905. Mass was appropriated to and not originated from atomi science. This is so far off the topic where heavier objects will fall faster than lighter objects on Earth outside a vacuum. The question was very specific and it was defined properly. I don't understand why you have ventured off in this direction. I dont know what you are trying to argue here but picture this situation: You are sitting in a test. You are given the mass of the paper sheet, cardboard sheet and steel sheet with their dimensions being equal. They state it is not in a vacuum. They tell you it is dropped from 50m above the ground. Which will hit the ground first? Explain why this is the case? jr writes> The steel will of course hit the ground first. It is not subject to wind drift like the paper and cardboard Nor will it veer very much from its straight path and it might even hit the ground at the same time as a steel sheet thrown like a frisbee at 50m. I use the balance scale to demonstrate my point. It operates the same in or out of a vacuum. I suspect that it might also have a limited function at the bottom of the sea. Who has the right answer here? I can prove why the steel sheet hits the ground first with mathematics (I have above in my previous post). Your initial statement suggested that they hit the ground at the same time. jr writes> I was not refering to such a modified specific set of circumstances. "Do all objects fall at the same rate? No." was the question and answer I attempted to address. This is based on the fact that the gravitational field has equal effects on the objects so it must be true that their speeds are equal? Wrong. jr writes> I was not considering a "gravitational field". I do not recognize the reality of such a field. It is functional for us and enables us to navigate the universe as we understand it but it is subject to a force we "feel" and one we have assigned to inanimate matter by defining the objective quantifiable resistance we act on [mg] as a generated force rather than a "resistance" that we apply a generated force to. We feel the force we generate. Inanimate objects feel nothing. A moving resistance has momentum. A moving resistance has force. These quantites function mathematically as [mv] and [ma or mg]. We live in a least action consistent universe where comparative resistance [mass] is independently conserved in the classical planet surface frame. So we think that it is proportional in the celestial frame to the magnitudes we measure locally (refering to areas on celestial surfaces and the space between all the celestial objects). I chose a balance scale to show that [g] is a consequence of location where mass is a measure of comparative resistance and not a generator of force. The balance scale does not require a vacuum. It requires any location within which it can function. We use a balance scale to compare weight [mg]. Weight is no more objective than the word "heavy" or the word "effort". However the mathematical formulation for weight is quantitatively effective because we work against resistance which varies according to mass and its rate of travel be it [g], [a] or [v] or just straight speed [s/t]. The balance scale compares the resistance of objects at any location it can operate. We call this mass but we think it generates and derives from force or weight which is what we feel.

Hello: I mean that barring theoretical locations based on our notion of gravitational force like area in around and near theoretical gravity based black holes, wherever we place a balance scale the factor [g] in the product [mg] will be identical on both balance pans. [g] itself can vary on the moon and other planets and it can vary on planet Earth depending on location. However in any case [g] will be constant at any given location that we can balance objects. However [g] acts on the balance scale as well and both pans. So it is uniformly acting on all objects we measure on a balance pan. [g] is therefore a consequence of location and varies according to location but yes it is constant at any given location. However it is different in magnitude on the moon for example where mass remains the same magnitude anywhere you can use the balance scale. So the magnitude of [g] is a consequence of location. Therefore all objects must fall at [g]. So the rate of fall depends on [g] and not on mass. Yes heavier objects will fall faster than feathers any place an atmosphere can influence the rate of fall. As far as atoms falling goes all atoms fall at the same rate but the atmosphere can remain in layers according to relative mass and density like a cork will float on the water where a rock will sink. All atoms fall but some atoms fall farther than others. The air has already ascended to its proper level like a cork released at the bottom of the sea will rise to the top. Weight is the human measure they acquire from the balance scale but the balance scale only compares mass as a function since [g] is a consequence of where the measure of mass is taken. I am trying not to wave my hands here. Does this suffice to explain it. Thank you for the question.

The question itself requires more definition. Of course air resistance affects the rate of fall. Terminal velocity is a function of the atmosphere we fall through and the surface area of the object it self. This puts an entire different question up. It would be beneficial to determine why objects fall at all. What attracts objects? You seem to believe that "gravity" attracts objects and "gravity" is the controller of all objects with mass. Like mass generates a force all its own. Admittedly there is a force that attracts objects. But mass does not generate that force. We acquire mass initially from the definition [mg] and [ma]. Where mass is conserved. Both [mg] and [ma] are subjective measurements of force as we have defined it. [F=mg] and [F=ma}. Where [mg] and [ma] can be objectively measured, calling them force is universalizing what we feel and because what we feel can be quantified as [mg] and [ma] does not justify a force beyond that which we feel and have set equivalent to objective measurements of "resistance". Axioms wrote> "I agree that [g] is a consequence of location. We know that [g] must change when distance between objects increase. An example will be "weightlessness" in space. The weight of the object changes but not its mass. This is what we learn in high school and is a fundamental aspect in physics." This assumes that the attraction is caused by mass. So the further mass is from another mass the weaker the attraction. But you are treating mass as equivalent to matter. Where mass is a measure of resistance and while we feel an equal and opposite resistance to the force we apply, this does not make the resistance a function of what we feel, namely force. And because we can calculate the objective quantities we feel [mg] and [ma] and call them force does not make the universe a function of the force we feel. Both [mg] and [ma] function within the parameters of least action motion. The mathematics functions best with least action motion. So as long as we have quantities like mass [m] and acceleration [a] and [g] and velocity as [v], all of which function within least action motion quantitatively still goes awry because we treat these quantities as though they represent a force beyond the force we apply. And we use mass as a proportional amount of matter beyond its origin which is in classical planetary surface object action. So when we lift an object we say that the planet applies an equal and opposite force that we feel. Whereas the object we lift has a resistance that we can quantify in units of [mg] anywhere we apply the force we feel. The planet exacts a uniform attraction on non-uniform atoms. We define this action as gravitational force where Einstein dealt with it as a uniform gravitational field, still relying on the force we apply to the resistance we work against, to define that resistance we feel as gravity. [F=mg] can also be written as [F=Nnmgx] where [N]=Avogadros Number and [n] = the number of moles and [mg] = the relative weight of a single atom [x]. This applies to the measure of a single isomer of an element but the principle can be applied to all elements. The action we call force then becomes a function of the resistance of a number of atoms where the attraction is uniform on non-uniform atoms. And what we feel is precisely defined. This is much more general of an answer to the original question but it helps to precisely define the terms we use. Have a good time. johnreed