johnreed studies

[johnreed]

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