 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| johnlawrencereedjr... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
Modified June 6, 2009, October 13, 2009, November 1, 2009
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Section 6
A brief follow up to the author’s June,2009 post “The Principle of
Equivalence Explained”. See also “The Least Action Consistent Stable
Universe and the Mathematics, Section 5.” 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 correct 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 mass in the last paragraph above is
limited to what we can experimentally verify about mass. Namely that
it applies to planet (and moon) surface inertial objects. No
“speculation” whatsoever. I have not used the universal stable system
vehicle of least action, to generalize our subjective feeling of
“force” we call gravity, and assume is the cause of the least action
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 11/1/09 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| johnlawrencereedjr... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 8:46 am, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
[quote]johnlawrencereedjr wrote:
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.
[/quote]
1) Isotopes.
jr writes>
You disappoint me wartz. What does the phrase “pure elements and pure
compounds” mean to you? I could be redundant and say “a “pure”
element consisting of only one isotope”. It matters not that we have
difficulty in separating the isotopes from the naturally occurring
forms. It matters not that an element has different forms. The
qualifier “pure” eliminates the mixed forms. The principle is the
point. And the point is we “feel” what we call mass, and what we
feel is the conserved, cumulative resistance of the atoms that
comprise an object (the legacy term for “object” is “body”). So we
feel the cumulative resistance of atoms in all the forms the atoms
come in. And anyway, with respect to your vacuous complaint , what
does the qualifier “(pretty near)” mean to you?
2) Binding energies of isotopes.
3) Binding energies of solids.
jr writes>
What part of an atom is its “so called” binding energy wartz? Is it
the part we are missing in our calculations after we measure its mass,
before and after? And tell me how this “binding energy” works wartz.
For that matter wartz, tell me what ”energy” is without defining it in
terms of mass. And while you are at it, tell me what “mass” is without
defining it in terms of a resistance that you quantify and feel.
Again, I am saying that the number of atoms is directly proportional
to the mass of an object. You are good at chemistry wartz. Consider
the term "gram atomic weight" and tell me what it represents. Binding
energy is a part of the total mass, jerk.
Have a good time Al,
johnreed
4) idiot
[quote]If the above is correct then on any planet or moon surface [F] can be
precisely defined (pretty near)[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
johnlawrencereedjr wrote:
[snip crap]
[quote]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.
[/quote]
1) Isotopes.
2) Binding energies of isotopes.
3) Binding energies of solids.
4) idiot
[quote]If the above is correct then on any planet or moon surface [F] can be
precisely defined (pretty near)
[snip rest of crap][/quote]
recursive idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:54 pm
|
|