|
Guest
|
X-No-Archive: yes
The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
Modified June 6, 2009, October 8, 2009
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Section 6
A brief follow up to the author’s June,2009 post “The Principle of
Equivalence Explained”. Here the issues have been narrowed down.
First 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 atomic weight of
a single atom of the element.
If the above is not incorrect then on any planet or moon surface [F]
can be precisely defined (pretty near) in terms of a “number” of
atoms, again, provided we are weighing pure compounds or elements. A
number of atoms represent an “amount of matter” in a more objective
(and precisely quantitative) manner, than our planet surface,
subjective notion of “resistance”, as [F]. 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 chemical analysis of
samples of planet and moon surface matter.
Second I say:
It follows then that since mass is the quantitative measure of the
conserved, 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.
Endnote
Note that my re-definition of inert mass in the last paragraph above
is limited to what we can experimentally verify about inert mass.
Namely that it applies proportionally to planet (and moon) surface
inertial objects. No “speculation” whatsoever. I have not used the
universal stable system vehicle of least action, to proportionally
generalize our subjective feeling of “force” we call gravity, and
assume is the proportional cause of the least action consistent order
we observe in the celestial universe. That assumption is
“speculative”, revered, institutionalized, and heralded as “Newton’s
Great Synthesis”. The description you want as moderator at
Sci.Physics.Research is “blasphemous”, not “too speculative”.
johnreed 10/8/09 |
|
|
