Plain English Physics Past 1-4

[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

 

[swansont]

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.

 

OK, how much charge would have to accumulate on the spheres for this to be electrostatic? Then show that steps were not taken to prevent this.

 

Why posit unseen forces? Why not just posit magic?

[johnreed]

OK, how much charge would have to accumulate on the spheres for this to be electrostatic? Then show that steps were not taken to prevent this.

 

Why posit unseen forces? Why not just posit magic?

 

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

 

[swansont]

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.

 

 

Gravity is not a form of electromagnetism.