Gravity as a force we feel

[johnreed]

Plain English Physics 101-3

Excerpts from

Published under new title

Modified Monday, May 21, 2012

johnlawrencereed jr

Excerpt on mass:

Developing a mathematical logic through the subjective lens provided by our senses allows us to define the least action consistent [*] universe after our own least action consistent image, using the least action consistent mathematics. Our weight as [mg] and a force that we feel as [ma]. Both [g] and [a] represent acceleration. What does [m] represent? Mass? What does mass represent? An amount of matter?

Since [g] with respect to the balance scale is a consequence of location, when we define an object in units of weight [mg], the quantity the balance scale is comparing is the quantity mass [m], where the quantity we are comparing is the quantity weight [mg] which changes with location. That's pretty simple isn't it? If it hasn't caused a seed of revelation in your thinking you might wonder why I bother to point it out.

When Galileo argued that all objects fall at the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same height {*} we were all amazed. We have remained amazed for the last 400 years. So amazed that we have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects really do fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m], when dropped at the same time at the same place from the same height (discounting air resistance).

What if they are not dropped at the same time and the same place?

We are amazed because our primary but subjective functional use for the balance scale was and is to compare weight [mg]. Consequently we think that the balance scale compares weight [mg]. Where the action of the balance scale on balance equalizes the resistance of two non-uniform (or uniform) pans of atoms, where the quantity [g] divides out of the equation. Therefore the measure of the comparative resistance is in mass [m] units. This will prove to be very convenient.

This is not to say that we cannot use the balance scale for a large variety of purposes. Here I have simply pointed out that what we call gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence of location. Therefore with respect to the balance scale all objects MUST fall at the rate of [g] at a particular location. If that does not provide a Eureka moment for you then indeed the fish are the last to recognize water.

Now that we know all objects have to fall at [g] we can figure out why. You may recognize that heretofore the question "why" has been frowned upon by the physicist mathematician.

This is because we have incorporated a functioning calculational system that has been raised to a level higher than the rational use of words (sometimes called thinking), based on "what" we call gravitational force [mg].

Recall that Ptolemy based his functional mathematics on an earth centered universe. We base our present mathematics on a force that we feel. The functional mathematics is based on a force that we feel. How centrist is that? We take it with us whereever we go.

We function in the universe like any other least action consistent object and define the least action consistent universe in terms of the least action consistent units that we feel. The resistance we encounter is equal to a force we feel. Therefore the resistance we encounter is regarded as an equal and opposite force mysteriously initiated by inanimate matter. We think that the force we feel is initiated by innanimate matter that feels nothing.

Inanimate matter feels nothing folks. The force we feel is equal to the resistance we encounter. That resistance is caused by a uniform action on atoms. Not a uniform or non uniform action on mass.

As a result our conceptual thinking is dumbed down and made a slave to the overly simplifying practically functional least action consistent mathematics.

The notion of gravity will work for us practically at any location we can occupy in the universe. However, the notion for gravity and its attendant new age Ptolmaic mathematics in a theoretical application constricts us and leads us into a false abyss.

Excerpt on a Conclusion:

We cannot overly generalize sensory quantities that operate solely within least action parameters, beyond the specific frame within which they directly apply. Where we can quantify a force we feel, in terms of our inertial mass, as isolated on the planet surface and applicable to our interactions with surface planet inertial mass objects within the planet field. We cannot generalize that notion of force to serve as the cause of the least action consistent behavior of the local and/or of the celestial bodies that apparently generate the field. We can, as inertial objects, use it to predict our operational and navigational requirements through the field.

This contradicts Newton's justifying premise for the generalization of local planet surface object mass to celestial bodies. That premise consisted solely of the assumption that since it is true for the mass of everything we can measure, it is true for the mass of every thing everywhere that we can't measure. Pure subjective centrism compounded.

johnreed