johnreed

These posts all reflect our ancient beliefs. We used the balance scale to give us weight for thousands of years and for thousands of years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. So when Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same height we were surprised and we have remained disturbed for 400 years. The problem revolves around what we think is fundamental. A force that we feel and measure and call gravity. We still think we are comparing weight on the balance scale... and we are... but that is superficial. Weight is subject to location. Where we place a balance scale is immaterial to the function of the balance scale (as long as it is placed in a frame within which it can operate). Wherever we place it the magnitude of the acceleration [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. We calibrate the machine with empty pans or identical weights. So when we define an object in units of weight [mg], the only quantity we are comparing on the balance scale is the quantity of mass [m], since acceleration [g] is a consequence of location, it allows us to calibrate the scale. This uniform action [g] on each pan enables us to compare non-uniform mass resistance on the balance scale. That's pretty simple isn't it? So you might wonder why I bother to point it out. Since what is called gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence of location and not a consequence of mass [m] (as our tactile sense informs us) all objects MUST fall at the rate of [g]. We should investigate why this is true [1]. We need not waste effort in validating its accuracy. Rather let us determine why it is so. Further, if [g] was not a consequence of location then mass [m] and acceleration [g] could not be combined into the product called weight [mg]. In such a case the balance scale would only give us weight as [w]. However if that were the case we could never have developed. Nonetheless we have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m] when dropped at the same time from the same height (in a vacuum). We need not argue that the rate of fall is [g]. Do we need to argue that [g] is a consequence of location? Maybe. If so let us begin. If we agree that [g] is a consequence of location the next question is why. Endnote [1] I have made it easier to reference my supporting work by creating a Google Science and Technology Group titled: "The Least Action Consistent Universe and the Mathematics". Currently it contains Sections 1 through 9 for reference. The many sub-sections and work prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as I have the time and gain familiarity with the venue. Meanwhile my more recent work is available for public review to all, and open to criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. The latter is a condition established by Google and newsgroups in general. I provide information. I seek no recruits. However, there are no restrictions or requirements to join. Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed johnreed

I guess I don't get the hang of this posting ongoing dialogues. I read one person saying [g] is measured on the balance scale. One saying different masses fall at different rates... then the guy starts out with insults to his girlfriend... and I get reprimanded for advising him of proper action in public forums. He is not asking he is telling and he is going to believe he is right regardless what anyone says for a long time. An undereducated crack pot that insults his girl friend in public? I don't know.

IS GRAVITY THE UNIFORM ATTRACTION OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS ALLOWING THE COMPARATIVE CUMULATIVE RESISTANCE OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS WE MEASURE ON THE BALANCE SCALE AND CALL MASS? by John Lawrence Reed Jr In response to a question asked by Robert Allan (mod note) Deleted; this is a duplication of another post http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60574-johnreed-studies/page__p__631631__fromsearch__1#entry631631 It's also not clear it's on-topic; please review the rules, specifically rules 5 and 10(end mod note) Well I am new at posting in ongoing dialogues here so bear with me. If we place a balance scale on the moon the [g] factor is different than on earth. In addition the [g] factor can change in magnitude at different locations on earth altho' at a much smaller magnitude. Except for theoretical locations like black hole horizons where we place a balance scale the factor of [g] will be the same on both pans to start with. This being the practical case the only quantity the balance scale compares is mass [m] which remains the same on earth, moon and any location we can use it. So the mass [m] remains the same but [g] can vary depending on location. If [g] varied with mass then we could jump from a plane and hold hands to either increase or decrease our rate of fall Further if [g] varied with mass [m] once on the planet surface we would be a part of the earths mass and could not even walk. We would ooze and thinly try to cover the planet surface. But as someone said this is all high school stuff. Your girl friend is right and you are wrong. This is all high school stuff that you should learn before you state a proposition in a public forum. And the earth is not flat, in case that comes next.

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.

IS GRAVITY THE UNIFORM ATTRACTION OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS ALLOWING THE COMPARATIVE CUMULATIVE RESISTANCE OF NON-UNIFORM ATOMS WE MEASURE ON THE BALANCE SCALE AND CALL MASS? by John Lawrence Reed Jr In response to a question asked by Robert Allan A Section on the Subjects of Gravity, Light, Classical, Quantum and Relativistic Physics John Reed Studies Saturday, October 01, 2011 Robert Allan> What is truth? I think that it's fair to say that truth is what can be proved and the rest is just...conjecture? johnreed> In brief: It appears that if we can envisage it as the truth and the closer we come to believing it is the truth; the greater the likelihood that we are wrong. This is not an iron clad rule, but consider: We think we have proved that a universal force that we call gravity exists as a property of inanimate matter. We believe it exists because we feel our weight. We believe it acts on us because we feel our weight. We define it in units of what we feel, our weight; as the product of mass and acceleration [mg]. We postulate that inertial mass [ma] and what we call gravitational mass [mg] are equivalent with respect to the celestial universe because they are equivalent with respect to what we measure and feel as our weight [mg] and force [ma]. So developing 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. Our weight as [mg] and a force that we feel as [ma]. Both [g] and [a] represent acceleration [1]. What does [m] represent? Mass? What does mass represent? An amount of matter? Note: Where we place a balance scale is immaterial to the function of the balance scale. Wherever we place it the magnitude of [g] as a factor of the product [mg] weight, will be the same on each pan regardless of the mass magnitudes placed on the pans [2]. So when we define an object in units of weight [mg], the only quantity we are comparing on the balance scale is the quantity of mass [m], since [g] is a consequence of location. That's pretty simple isn't it? So you might wonder why I bother to point it out. Since what is called gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence of location (and not a consequence of mass [m]) all objects MUST fall at the rate of [g]. Further, if [g] was not a consequence of location then mass [m] and [g] acceleration could not be combined into the product called weight [mg]. In such a case the balance scale would only give us weight as [w]. In fact we used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000 years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. We are real quick aren't we? So when Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same height we were amazed and we have remained amazed for 450 years. So amazed that we have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m] when dropped at the same time at the same place from the same height (in a vacuum). We are amazed because our functional use for the balance scale was and is to compare weight [mg]. Weight [mg] is specific to location and specific to what we feel [weight mg] at that location. Weight, [mg], and what we feel vary according to a location in space. Given any mass [m] all three, weight, [mg] and what we feel, depend on the magnitude of [g]. We can change locations and our mass [m] remains unchanged but our weight [mg] and what we feel vary according to a location in space. Again its pretty simple stuff. High school physics. So why do I continue to discuss it? I discuss it because we have defined the universe in terms of weight [mg], a force that we feel. We think that the force we feel is proportional everywhere in the universe (in terms of mass, distance and time), to the magnitudes we feel and measure on the surface of planets and moons. We calculate a constant of proportionality [G] [3] that we apply to planets, moons and stars, by analyzing the least action consistent behavior of planet surface object mass, where planet surface object mass is emergent and conserved independent of the least action consistent behavior of planets, moons and stars [4]. We say that a force we feel as weight [mg] is universally generated by inanimate and animate matter as an innate property of matter itself. I say this is false. The force we feel is generated by us (our effort) and we apply it to inanimate matter and/or feel it through physically interacting with inanimate and animate matter. The force we feel does not act at a distance. The force we feel does depend on our location in space. So "something" acts at a distance. All atoms fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Therefore I conclude that the planet attractor acts uniformly on each atom (Einstein proposed a uniform gravitational field). This is the ‘level’ playing field we are born in and the field that contains the atoms from which we are built. Given the level playing field that acts on all atoms 'uniformly'; we feel the cumulative 'non'-uniform resistance of those atoms when we 'work' against the direction the field of non-uniform atoms is uniformly pulled. When we 'travel' in the direction the field uniformly pulls on our atoms, we experience free fall, or no resistance other than air resistance. The 'universal ' attractive action is uniform on the non-uniform atoms that make up animate and inanimate matter. This is why all atoms fall at the same rate in a vacuum. The pull on each is uniform. This is why we can isolate mass on the balance scale. This uniform pull allows us to feel variance in the resistance of the non-uniform atoms we work against. An object we lift offers its weight as resistance to our effort. It offers no resistance to the pull of the planet. It offers resistance to the force we apply. Gravitational force is a legacy concept based solely on what we feel; our weight, and the quantitative least action consistent mathematical convenience of its definition [mg]. Mass is conserved on the balance scale and [g] is a function of location. Mass is also conserved in impact experiments because it is independent of the attraction by the planet. Nothing pulls on us. The pull is uniform on our atoms which we do not feel during freefall. We feel our total weight when we are in contact with the planet; or when we accelerate away from the planet. We feel the resistance of our non-uniform atoms when we work in opposition to the direction the planet uniformly pulls on our non-uniform atoms. We feel the resistance of our non-uniform atoms when we act in opposition to a state of rest or in opposition to a state of constant motion. In all cases of inertial mass [ma] and gravitational mass [mg] the force we feel is the resistance of non-uniform atoms in response to our effort. We act on this non-uniform resistance and we feel an equal and opposite force because our subjective effort is equal and opposite to the objective resistance we act on. We have defined it that way. [F=mg] and [F=ma]. The force we apply when we lift an object at any location, will always be equal to the weight of the object's atoms that resist the force we apply at that location. The quantity that acts on the atoms is [g]. We generate the force. Matter provides the resistance we must counter. We feel and generate the force. It begins and ends in our body and effort. We lift objects. Objects can strike us. [F=mg] and/or [F=ma]. This does not imply that mass generates a universal gravitational force that we feel, much less at a distance. We have attributed this phenomenon to Newton's 3rd law. The "equal and opposite" law because the subjective force we generate is equal and opposite to the objective resistance of the non-uniform atoms we work against. We have defined the universe through the subjective lens of our own image. Mass was such a convenient emergent quantity that we required no further analysis on precisely what mass represents. We could navigate the planet frame and the theoretical universe in terms of our notion of force. Our notion of force consists of the product of the conserved classical quantity mass [m] and the quantity [g] which is an independent consequence of a location in classical celestial space. The quantities mass [m], gravitational acceleration [g] and acceleration [a] and their products [ma] and [mg] operate independently and consistent with least action motion. There is nothing universal about the force we feel [mg] beyond the conserved resistance of atoms [m] and the location in space [g] that accompanies that resistance. I have pointed out that these two least action consistent factors [m] and [g] are wholly independent of one another. Even so all of our reputable science institutions continue to endorse gravity as a fundamental fact [5]. The argument I put forward can seamlessly mesh with the current long running paradigm. The least action consistent use of the least action consistent mathematics on a least action consistent universe requires a strict use of precise language to describe the quantities we examine in our convenient superficial least action consistent mathematical way. Although Mass [m] does represent an amount of matter as the comparative resistance of a number of atoms, it is presently defined as a comparative resistance of blobs of matter. Bodies, particles, objects and/or blobs are all equally non-specific. Generally we compare one blob to another blob on the balance scale. These non-specific blobs of mass [m] can be appropriated to apply in any frame. However I have defined mass as the comparative resistance of non-uniform (and uniform) atoms in response to and as a consequence of a uniform attraction on all atoms. 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 represents one mole of that element. 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 weight. So straight from the Periodic Table we have the atomic weight of each element in grams that is equivalent to the weight of 6.0221415 x 10^23 atoms of that element. That number of atoms is 1 mole of an element and the chemical numerical notation references moles of atoms. To keep it simple the gram atomic weight of Hydrogen can be represented roughly as 1. Oxygen then, also roughly is 16. So we have 2 gram atoms of hydrogen and one gram atom of Oxygen. Each gram atom is equivalent to 6.0221415 x 10^23 atoms of the element. After they are combined using units of weight to make water, each molecule of water consists of 6.0221415 x 10^23 water atoms. So Avogadro's Number in this case is a constant of proportionality for the atomic chemical formulation of the elemental compounds when represented in units that we use as weight [mg]. The atomic weight 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 precise number of atoms (moles) our Periodic Table represents the relative weight of each element in units that define the number of atoms as a unit multiple of Avogadro's number. The constant factor here is a number of atoms. Not the resistance of a number of atoms. Mass is a convenient means by which we can represent the resistance of a number of uniform and non-uniform atoms acted upon uniformly by the planet attractor. Consequently our effort we call force [mg] cannot be generalized to an effort by the planet. Inanimate objects exert no effort and feel no force. The planet attractor acts uniformly on atoms. All atoms fall at the same rate. We lift or work against the cumulative sum of the non-uniform resistance of the atoms in an object. The planet attractor pulls uniformly on the object's non-uniform atoms and on our non-uniform atoms as we lift the object. To assign the force we feel and generate to inanimate object resistance is simple error. The final piece of this 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. 6450 years is still a long, long time in terms of the life span we are given. If you are perplexed and think that this is not what you were taught in school, you are correct. This is what I have learned and what I am attempting to explain. I am redefining gravitational force as a force we feel as living objects in response to resistance. We act on resistance and we feel the force we generate. The cause of that resistance is undoubtedly universal, but it does not manifest in the universe as the force we call gravity. It is the planet attractor's uniform action on non-uniform atoms. The uniform action on non-uniform atoms by the planet attractor is why all atoms fall at the same rate. The atoms have no resistance falling in a vacuum. We feel the resistance we call force and weight when we interact with matter on the playing field equalized by the uniform attractive action on all atoms. We can quantify this resistance in units as a product of mass and acceleration [ma] and/or [mg]. I will further explain why this works when I continue. Although any skilled physicist can take it from here. My ideas can exist side by side with the present paradigm and answer more problem questions while operating wholly consistent with the simplistic use of the least action consistent mathematical common properties shared by least action consistent systems across the board. Other alternative causal ideas for gravity are in some way related to Einstein's notion of relative to perception motion extended to a uniform gravitational field that acquires uniformity by treating the planet as expanding to meet stationary objects and justifying it by noting that we cannot determine if we are moving or if what we observe is doing the moving. Like what we observe influences the objective behavior of the universe. The original seed for this idea probably occurred when Einstein as a boy rode on a train and noticed that he could not tell if his car was moving or the one outside his window was moving. And then he rode on a light beam. I think the Repuglicans called California Governor Jerry Brown "Moonbeam". But then the repuglicans have destroyed this nation again so anyone they find fault with is highly recommended.. johnreed, Thursday, October 13, 2011 Modified Friday, September 23, 2011, Monday, September 26, 2011, Saturday, October 01, 2011 Saturday, 08 October, 2011 Monday, October 10, 2011 Thursday, October 13, 2011 End Notes: [1] The simplest case of acceleration can be expressed as a change of speed over time. Take the most familiar US definition for speed as miles per hour or [m/h]. This is [distance/time] or [d/t]. [speed] over [time] then becomes [d/t]/[t] which is [d/t^2. [2] This is true except in theoretical cases where extreme magnitudes that exist in some mathematical theories are projected to vary greatly in very short distances. [3] A constant of proportionality in its simplest representation would say be 2 when the proportions are 4/2, 6/3, 18/9 etc. In the case of the planet orbits Kepler learned that the period of each planet orbit and the cube of the orbit radius can be expressed as T^2/r^3 = K. Here K is the constant of proportionality. [4] Where mass is the conserved cumulative resistance of non-uniform planet and moon surface atoms and is conserved independent of the celestial least action motion: Recall that we have spin angular momentum and linear momentum from Newton’s first law. We don’t have orbital angular momentum from that law. We acquire orbital angular momentum from Newton’s mathematical derivation for centripetal force where he used a perfect circle and perfect motion to argue for centripetal acceleration. The spinning perfect circle angular velocity is an artifact of the uniformly spinning circle itself. The angular velocity of a spinning disk, sphere, or solid object, is an artifact of the uniformly spinning disk, sphere, or solid. So we have least action consistent single object spin angular momentum as an artifact of the spinning perfect circle angular velocity. Newton then used the least action consistent angular velocity of Kepler’s empirical time controlled law of areas for 2 body planet orbital motion, to mathematically carry his perfectly circular 2 body uniform motion, spin angular momentum analog, to the planet’s non-uniform 2 body orbital motion. It’s based solely on time-space parameters where the emergent conserved cumulative resistance of non-uniform planet and moon surface atoms is either designated as the cause of the least action consistent celestial motion (Newton’s gravity), or as the consequence of the least action consistent motion, as space-time curvature (Albert Einstein and peers). [5] I had something to point out here but in keeping with my age it has slipped my mind for the moment. johnreed I have made it easier to reference my supporting work by creating a Google Science and Technology Group titled: "The Least Action Consistent Universe and the Mathematics". Currently it contains Sections 1 through 9 for reference. The many sub-sections and work prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as I have the time and gain familiarity with the venue. Meanwhile my more recent work is available for public review to all, and open to criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. The latter is a condition established by Google and newsgroups in general. I provide information. I seek no recruits. However, there are no restrictions or requirements to join. Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed If you respond to this post from a newsgroup other than the above, please send a copy to Randamajor@yahoo.com, if you want a timely response. Thanks. johnreed Sunday, 25 September, 2011

Recall that we have linear momentum and spin angular momentum from Newton’s first law. The angular velocity of a spinning disk, sphere, or solid object, is an artifact of the uniformly spinning disk, sphere, or solid object. The angular momentum of a spinning solid object also follows from the first law. We don’t have orbital angular momentum from that law. We acquire orbital angular momentum from Newton’s mathematical derivation for orbital centripetal force, where he used a perfect circle and perfect motion to argue for orbital centripetal acceleration. In other words Newton used the artifacts of spin angular momentum, ie. a perfect circle and perfect (uniform) motion, to argue the mathematical case for orbital centripetal force and orbital angular momentum. Here the only change in velocity is direction where the direction describes a perfect circle. The spinning perfect circle angular velocity is an artifact of the uniformly spinning circle itself. So we have least action consistent, single object, spin angular velocity in all cases. He then associated planet surface object mass [m] with orbital centripetal acceleration [v^2/r] by multiplying both sides of a least action consistent equation involving [v^2/r] by unity as mass/mass [m/m]. The product is [mv^2/r] and voila spin angular momentum was soon to became orbital angular momentum. Newton then used the least action consistent angular velocity from Kepler’s empirical, time controlled law of areas describing 2 body planet orbital motion to mathematically carry his perfectly circular 2 body uniform motion, spin angular momentum analog, to the planet’s non-uniform 2 body orbital motion. The generalization is based on least action consistent time-space parameters where the emergent conserved cumulative resistance of planet and moon surface atoms is either designated as the cause of the least action consistent celestial motion (Newton’s gravity), or as the consequence of the least action consistent 4D space-time curvature caused, continuum motion (Einstein and peers). Regurgitation of original error. johnreed

The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics Modified October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, January 11, 2011, March 13, 2011 Section 18 John Lawrence Reed, Jr. The Subjective Aspect of Mass I have argued that with respect to the kinematics of natural stable physical systems stability in the field requires efficient cyclic motion. I have also argued that the mathematics describes the stable universe well because the mathematics easily represents the efficient (least action) properties of stable physical systems. I have shown that Isaac Newton defined celestial centripetal force in units proportional to planet (and moon) surface object mass, using (1) the least action property of a circular orbit, as it applied to the least action property of Kepler's Law of Areas[*] and (2) that the Force we apply [F] is equal and opposite [F=mg] to the resistance we encounter [mg] and/or [ma], at any location in space [g]. This, to generalize his notion for a universal gravitational force based on the resistance we work against weight [mg] and planet surface object mass [m] (also resistance) conservation[**]. I have shown the connection between Kepler's laws and least action motion, where surface planet object mass is independent of the celestial frame. For example, increasing the orbit speed of a body by a factor of [sqrt 2] will cause any orbiting body to escape its orbit, regardless of the mass of the body and the mass of the planet. Further, we cannot choose the orbit speed [s/t] independent of the radius of the orbit [r], where we can choose the orbit speed [s/t] largely independent of the mass of the orbiting body. (See Section 4, this series of posts.). I have noted the example [.5mv^2] and [mv], and [pir^2] and [2pir]. In the calculus, classical energy and classical momentum are analogous to the efficient relationship exhibited by the Euclidean circle area and its boundary. Further, [4/3pir^3] and [4pir^2] for the volume of a sphere and its surface area also obey the differential-integral rule. This is perfectly general across least action physical and mathematical relationships. We should expect there to be a retained consistent mathematical relationship that speaks to least action efficient systems and their properties across the board. Not necessarily to mass across the board, since again, in at least one frame, the celestial; we have noted that terrestrial (surface planet object) mass is independent, ie. all objects freefall, orbit and escape from a given planet and/or moon at the same rate, regardless of mass (depending objectively only on least action consistent, distance and time units, and “subjectively” on the Force [F] we, as “living” planet surface objects (composed of atoms), ”feel”, initiate, apply and measure, when we act on resistance [m]. In another frame, the sub-atomic, mass [m] resistance is not conserved. The mass of an electron and proton taken separately is not the same as the mass of the electron and proton joined as an element. As a consequence in part, the notion of mass as a component of Force from the equation [F=mg] was modified. Relativistic mass was defined in the expression [F={m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)}]. In order to maintain mass invariance with respect to our notion of Force as [F=ma], mass became the expression contained in the curly brackets { } of the expression [F=d/dt {mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)}]. This to say that Force [F] is the derivative with respect to time of the momentum of the object. We continue to define mass (as a component of Force) here in terms of momentum: where momentum can only be verified with respect to planet surface objects and where mass is independent of the celestial frame. With no further speculation here: note that our response [F] to resistance [mg] is a Force [F] that is solely felt and initiated by us. The question here is: should we continue to speculate that the Force [F] we feel in response to a resistance we encounter, measured in conserved units of that resistance [m] as weight [mg], is the force that is attracting matter to the planet? Does the fact that the Force [F] we apply and think is acting on us is always equal and opposite to our weight [mg] mean that the Force [F] of attraction from the planet is acting on what we think we feel mass [m] as the material part of our weight in [mg]? Our mass does not change [g] changes. Since mass does not change might mass represent the conserved resistance of a finite amount of matter? The conserved resistance of say, a specific number and type of atoms? Can we generalize a Force [F] we apply to a resistance [m] as equal and opposite to [mg] to the entire least action consistent, inanimate, celestial universe because we feel the Force [F] we apply to the resistance [mg], where the scalar component of the resistance [m] is conserved independently terrestrially and in celestial planet and moon surface matter interactions? The resistance of a planet surface object's mass [mg] and [ma] is equivalent to a Force [F] we, as living surface planet inertial objects apply, measure, and feel, at any location in space by definition [F=mg]. We have defined the resistance we act on [mg] as equal and opposite to a Force [F] we apply. Does applying effort to lift something we can quantify in units as [mg] mean that the planet attractor unequivocally acts on and/or is generated by [mg]? It’s easy to grasp the fact that each of our individual and varied weights [mg] are equal and opposite to a Force [F] we each feel [F=mg]. Calling the Force [F] we each feel “gravity” and generalizing it as equal and opposite to the Force the planet exerts [Mg] on us [Mg=mg] … is convenient, largely inconsequential and wholly subjective. Where in fact, if the planet attractor acts uniformly on our atoms we each work against the resistance of our atoms, quantified as [mg], which we can measure on the balance scale. We do not work against the resistance of the planet [Mg]. We work against the attraction of the planet. That attraction is super electromagnetic acting on all atoms uniformly. Moreover if the attraction acted on [mg] an increase in [m] would cause an increased attraction. Where in fact when we increase [m] our weight [mg] increases and we hold the planet attractor Force conveniently equivalent to the increase we feel. Where the equal and opposite condition is maintained by the increase in the number of atoms comprising the mass and our additional applied effort on the resistance. To rephrase the question: Can we proportionally generalize mass (as a conserved resistive amount of matter measured at the terrestrial or planet and moon surface classical frame), to the celestial (moon to planet, planet to sun) frame, merely based on least action consistent, planet surface object, distance and time units, where planet surface object mass [m] is significant with respect to a Force we as planet surface objects feel [mg], but is nonetheless independent with respect to the celestial frame. Mass [m] does not change [g] changes. If the planet were alive the Force it could feel would be the force exerted by the smaller object. Just like a baseball flying through the air will strike your head with a force [ma]. So too will a falling baseball strike your head with a force [mg]. I don’t want to aband-on but to expand-on, the useful tools and concepts we use in our physical science. The functional celestial vector is a consequence of [1] the least action consistent stable universe motion, and [2] the independence of planet surface object mass with respect to that motion, and [3] the least action consistent mathematics. The planet and moon surface object conserved "mass in motion" vector is also a consequence of that least action celestial motion because the planet attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. In either case, the celestial or the planet surface object case, planet surface object mass is independent with respect to the planet and celestial attractor action. Since we are planet surface objects our mass is independent with respect to the planet and celestial attractor action. The planet attractor is not acting on our mass. However, Planet surface object mass is not independent with respect to a Force [F] that we, as living planet surface objects apply and can measure and feel. We can quantitatively define the resistance we act on as equal and opposite to a Force we feel [F = mg]. This works well because we are planet surface objects and mass [m] is emergent in the planet attractor field that acts uniformly on all atoms.. Again, in a least action consistent stable universe, where planet surface object mass is independent of the celestial frame, can we proportionally generalize planet surface object mass to celestial, planet, moon and star masses, based solely on common cross frame least action characteristics of their respective motions? Is this justified beyond its subjective and pragmatic functionality? The question appears to rest on whether or not it can be shown that the balance scale compares the resistance of atoms, which we interpret in terms of weight [mg]. A thought experiment: Consider a pure, one isotope element. On a balance scale, imagine that we can place one atom at a time in a pan. We have a standard calibrated mass in the other pan. We can (theoretically) place one atom at a time in one pan until it is balanced against the standard mass in the other pan. When we lift either the pan with atoms or the pan with the standard mass we feel weight. We feel the combination represented quantitatively as the product [mg] at location [g]. The quantity [g] represents an acceleration that is dependent solely on a distance from centers of various densities. In this thought experiment, we observe that the balance scale compares the resistance of a quantity of atoms to the resistance of a quantity of matter calibrated in mass units. Given that the thought experiment is valid, it seems clear that we feel (work against) at location [g], the cumulative resistance (mass [m]) of the number of atoms in the pure object pan at that location. The number of atoms, like the mass, is a function of density. This density has historically been seen as a function of gravitational Force [F], the Force we apply and (supposedly) work against. I have shown that mass [m] represents the cumulative resistance of planet surface atoms, as measured on the balance scale. Planet and moon surface object mass [m] represents the conserved cumulative resistance of uniformly acted upon atoms. We define this resistance in mass units. The action of the balance scale, on balance, speaks to the uniform attractive action on the contents of each pan. The balance scale does not tell us what kind of attractive action is acting on the pan. We can look at it subjectively as though it is a uniform attraction on mass [m] (as Newton did with gravity), or a uniform attraction on atoms (where Newton did not require any greater distinction than mass [m]). In either view, mass units are conserved. Question: What is it about mass that allows this? Answer: The planet attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. Mass is the unit of measure of the conserved cumulative resistance of a number of atoms. The uniform attraction on atoms creates a field that is equivalent to an unencumbered field with respect to mass [m]. Each atom in the pure object pan is uniformly acted upon by the planet attractor. If each atom was not acted upon uniformly by the planet attractor, regardless of the atom's mass, we would not be able to acquire a balance of mass [m] using the balance scale. Nor could we isolate mass [m] in impact collisions. All we could acquire is a balance of weight [w], in the event we could even exist. All we need do is duplicate the time space parameters to place any of our planet and moon surface objects into semi-permanent orbits. The Force [F] we apply to do this is on the cumulative resistance of the atoms [mg] composing the object. Setting the conserved and emergent cumulative resistance of an orbiting say, baseball's atoms, equal and opposite to the cumulative resistance of the atoms composing say, the planet Earth, is an erroneous and occult, but functional indulgence, arising from the successful prediction of "least action" time and space parameters in conjunction with the fact that planet surface object mass [m] is independent of the celestial frame. This provides us erroneous validation for the faulty premise put forward by Isaac Newton that: "Since it is true (the proportional conservation of planet surface object mass) for all matter we can measure, it is true for all matter whatsoever." Paraphrased. With a modicum of thought this is simply not warranted. I conclude that the celestial order we observe is not a universal consequence of conserved planet and moon surface object mass [m] (what we as planet and moon surface living inertial objects, apply, measure and solely feel as Force [F]). I also conclude that black holes are a non-existent fantasy based on our present subjective, quantitative but intellectually primitive gravitational beliefs. The supposed fact that we have "discovered" black holes in distant space notwithstanding. Rather, we see what we expect to see. The less we know for certain, the more we seem to think we know, and as a result of obscure observations, the more we try to extend our infirm knowledge to the rest of the universe, in the likeness of ourselves. The fact that we begin and end causes us to assume that all things begin and end. The rarest of supporting observations provide us "evidentiary proof" for our subjective notions. Which notions insure that we continue in our intellectually restricted theoretical mode. Consequently I engaged in an extended search for a way to show that the planet attractor acted on atoms and not on mass [m]. After some 12-15 years of unsupported and discouraged research on this, I had come to the tentative conclusion that we cannot tell the difference, so either approach is functional. Clearly a sad place to leave it after all the time invested. Then one day the connection between Avogadro, the balance scale and the periodic table reminded me that I can determine a specific number of atoms if I have the mass of a pure element. So there is a direct conversion for planet surface object mass as resistance, to planet surface object mass as a number of atoms. Therefore, I say, that in the case of pure compounds or elements [F=mg] can be written as [F=nNmg], where [n] represents the number of moles, [N] represents Avogadro’s number, and [mg] represents the relative atomic weight of a single atom of the element. In so far as the above is correct, then on any planet or moon surface, the force we feel, apply and measure [F], can be set precisely equivalent (pretty near) in objective terms, to a “number” of element specific atoms, again, provided we are weighing pure compounds or elements. A number of element specific atoms represent an “amount of matter” in a more objective conceptual (and precisely quantitative) manner, than our planet and moon surface object, quantitative but "subjective", and therefore "centrist" notion of “resistance”, as "an amount of matter" [m]. Although in cases other than pure elements or compounds, the mass of the object alone will not provide us a means to calculate the number of atoms in the object, the principle itself should generalize to all experimental physical analysis of samples of planet and moon surface matter. A prediction. It follows then that since conserved planet and moon surface object mass can be set equivalent to the quantitative measure of the cumulative resistance of a planet surface, inertial object's atoms (that we measure and feel), and since we are living planet surface inertial objects, then what we measure and feel and call gravitational force, is the accelerated, conserved, cumulative resistance of a planet (or moon) surface inertial object's atoms. This includes the atoms that make up our bodies and the atoms in the bowling ball (etc.) that we lift. Our notion that a universal force (that we quantitatively measure in conserved, planet surface object mass units in motion, that we as living planet surface inertial objects initiate, apply, and/or, feel) is acting on conserved planet and moon surface mass, is subjectively functional (mass is not independent of the force that we feel) but nonetheless false. We initiate, apply and feel "the so called gravitational force". The attraction is on atoms. Therefore I submit that what we call gravity is a super form of electro magnetism that acts on all atoms, not just those “special case” atoms that are internally and externally optimally alligned. Endnote [1] Where mass is the conserved cumulative resistance of planet and moon surface object atoms and is conserved independently of the celestial least action motion. Recall that we have spin angular momentum and linear momentum from Newton’s first law. We don’t have orbital angular momentum from that law. We acquire orbital angular momentum from Newton’s mathematical derivation for centripetal force where he used a perfect circle and perfect motion to argue for centripetal acceleration. The spinning perfect circle angular velocity is an artifact of the uniformly spinning circle itself. The angular velocity of a spinning disk, sphere, or solid object, is an artifact of the uniformly spinning disk, sphere, or solid. So we have least action consistent single object spin angular momentum in fact, and as an artifact of the spinning perfect circle angular velocity. Newton then used the least action consistent angular velocity of Kepler’s empirical time controlled law of areas for 2 body planet orbital motion, to mathematically carry his perfectly circular 2 body uniform motion, spin angular momentum analog, to the planet’s non-uniform 2 body orbital motion. It’s based on time-space parameters where the emergent conserved independent cumulative resistance of planet and moon surface atoms is either designated as the cause of the least action consistent celestial motion (Newton’s gravity), or as the consequence of the least action consistent motion, as space-time curvature (Albert Einstein and peers). This where planet surface object mass is independent of the celestial frame. [2] Historically the idea for the conservation of mass included its mathematical invariance within its operation in the classical frame and the attendant notion that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So mass and matter were initially held as nearly synonymous in meaning due to the fogginess surrounding the connecting thread. The balance scale was and still is thought to represent a measure of gravitational Force [F], or weight [mg]. johnreed

Newton's third law. Equal and opposite force. This is based on Descartes earlier work on impacting inertial mass objects. Where we define force in terms of impacting inertial mass objects, an equal and opposite quantitative but nonetheless subjective inertial mass generated force ensues. Impacting inertial mass objects is a special case of the "interaction" between inertial mass objects. The balance scale is another special case of this interaction. Since we define the resistance we work against and call gravity, in terms of our inertial mass, when we lift an inertial mass object, this also qualifies as an interaction between inertial mass objects, which we qualify as and where an equal and opposite quantitative inertial mass force also ensues. This equal and opposite action consists of the resistance we work against in lifting the inertial mass object which is precisely equal and opposite to the product of the inertial mass of the object and the planet attractor action (g). Which planet attractor action is independent of the object's inertial mass. Yet we have assigned this equal and opposite inertial mass interaction property as an action between inertial mass objects and celestial objects, which celestial object, the planet qualifies as. Where inertial mass is independent of the planet attractor action. And equal and opposite applies solely to the quantitative interaction reflecting the resistance we work against and accelerated inertial mass objects, again which we qualify as. johnreed

jr writes> 1) If we define gravity as the resistance we work against and quantify in terms of our inertial mass, then by definition it is an action generated by mass. It has been an 'a priori' notion for us for as long as the recorded history of thinking. The ideas of up and down, Heaven and Hell, a flat world, and even the Earth as the center of the universe. It is the basis for Newton's universe and Einstein's universe. The idea of "up and down" through the idea of "a curved space time" originates from the same 'a priori' notion. The subjective notion that what we feel is fundamental, augmented by the idea that our quantitative definition(s) of what we feel is causal. 2) The idea that equal and opposite action at a distance existed between orbiting pairs rested on Newton's third law. The third law in turn falls out of the behavior of impacting inertial mass objects. Where we, as inertial mass objects define gravitational force in terms of and proportional to the resistance we work against, inertial mass. The conjecture that this quantified but nonetheless subjective notion of force applies to non-impacting celestial objects or between inertial mass objects and celestial objects is not proved. As far as gravity goes all that is proved is that the effort we as inertial mass objects expend in lifting an inertal mass object is equal and opposite to the comparative measure of the product of the inertial object's mass and the accelerative planet action taken on the balance scale. Where we know that [g] is independent of mass and divides out on the balance scale. 3) Newton defined centripetal force in terms of his second and third law by setting his first law object on a circular trajectory at a uniform motion. Here the law of areas and its controlling time function, falls out as a joined artifact of the efficient area enclosing circle itself. Which eliminates the controlling time function in the real orbits, enabling mass to operate as the sole (non-time controlled) cause of the least action motion. He connected the efficient joined time artifact of the uniform circle motion to Kepler's efficient time controlled law of areas. Newton generalized the least action property of Kepler's law of areas to the entire universe as the mathematical carrier for his centripetal force. He assigned the resistance he worked against (inertial mass) and called "gravity" as the 'a priori' cause of his centripetal force. If we define gravity as the resistance we work against and quantify in terms of our inertial mass, or the inertial mass of any object we, as inertial mass objects interact with quantitatively, by virtue of the equal and opposite behavior of interacting inertial mass objects, an equal and opposite quantitative, but nonetheless subjective notion of force ensues. This is proved gravity. Have a good time. johnreed