Plain English Physics 101 Part 5

[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

[studiot]

Good morning john reed.

 

Did you have a point to discuss?

[Ophiolite]

If you respond to this publication take care. Try to avoid embarrassing your descendants.

Good advice. You could always ask the admins to delete your post. Only a few of us saw it.

[imatfaal]

 

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

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

All my family are terribly embarrassed by me anyway. The chance that this might segue onto anti-gravity machines means that I think I might move this to speculations to be on the safe side.

[swansont]

Mass isn't weight.

[John Cuthber]

Given that I'm 47 and single I don't think I need to worry too much about any descendents.

 

"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"

So, electrons don't have mass the?

 

If this "The relative atomic weight of an atom expressed in grams as weight [mg] using the periodic chart represents one mole of that element." is the "plain English" version, can I try the ornate English version instead please?

 

"That number represents the number of atoms in a gram atom, or the gram atomic number of an element."

Nope, its a gram atomic weight.

 

Here is a plainer English explanation of Avagadro's number.

 

Sometimes we find it easier to work with groups of items rather than individual ones.

For example we commonly buy eggs in dozens.

The same thing happens with atoms but, because they are very small, we use a very large number.

We could choose any big enough number , but the one we use is called Avagadro's number.

It's usually written as

6.0221415 x 10^23

That's about 6 followed by 23 zeros.

 

The reason we chose that number is that it's how many hydrogen atoms there are in a gram of hydrogen.

[johnreed]

Given that I'm 47 and single I don't think I need to worry too much about any descendents.

 

"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"

So, electrons don't have mass the?

 

jr writes> Electrons have not been shown to exist as objects inside atoms. Electrons do not remain free outside the atom except when contained by powerful electromagnetic fields. Since (g) in (mg) is a consequence of location (g) divides out of the balance scale comparison. This leaves a comparative resistance of atoms at any (g). We call this comparative resistance of atoms Mass. And we think it is the cause of celestial motion ie gravity. We think that what we feel (mg) is the cause of gravity where gravity is defined as what we feel (mg). Where (g) is a consequence of location and (m) is the conserved comparative resistance of atoms as measured on the balance scale. I'm just making sense out of non sense.

 

If this "The relative atomic weight of an atom expressed in grams as weight [mg] using the periodic chart represents one mole of that element." is the "plain English" version, can I try the ornate English version instead please?

 

"That number represents the number of atoms in a gram atom, or the gram atomic number of an element."

Nope, its a gram atomic weight.

 

jr writes> It may be called weight. But (g) divides out on balance. You measure weight because you cannot count the number of atoms. Since (g) divides out please tell me how it is that weight is the fundamental here.

 

jr writes> You can call it a gram atomic weight. This works because (g) as I noted above divides out of the equation. While you measure weight, the balance scale compares mass resistance. This relative resistance is quantified on the periodic table.

 

Here is a plainer English explanation of Avagadro's number.

 

Sometimes we find it easier to work with groups of items rather than individual ones.

For example we commonly buy eggs in dozens.

The same thing happens with atoms but, because they are very small, we use a very large number.

We could choose any big enough number , but the one we use is called Avagadro's number.

It's usually written as

6.0221415 x 10^23

That's about 6 followed by 23 zeros.

 

jr writes> You could at the very least spell Avogadro correctly.

 

The reason we chose that number is that it's how many hydrogen atoms there are in a gram of hydrogen.

 

jr writes> How many atoms are in a gram of Oxygen? Of helium? Of anyium? It appears that we could measure the number of atoms per gram in any weight system we choose. Whatever that system is will provide a common number of atoms to serve as a mole measure in chemical combination notation.

The measure of gram atoms does not change with location. The measure of weight does change with location. You can call what you do a measure of weight but what the balance scale is doing is comparing the relative resistance of atoms which incidentally does not vary even when you use your subjective notion of weight.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Good advice. You could always ask the admins to delete your post. Only a few of us saw it.