I share John Reeds' notion about gravity. Physics has so far measured the behaviour of quarks and electrons and other femions and bosons but gravity seems to be a fiction!
I share Reeds' views, on the grounds that the so called instanteneous force (gravity) is already present with quarks. Hence, gravity as a concept could simply be looked at as a heavy concentration of quarks at the centre or some part of a planet or moon or other celestrial bodies. Michael Atovigba Benue State University Makurdi On Oct 23, 5:45 am, alloy ihuah <alloyih...@yahoo.com> wrote: > What a wonderful rethinking of the science of science. In the recent past, > there > have been serious developments in the area of the science of God, but in > particular, in the defence of, and support for the existence of God. I need > such literature to advance reasearch and teaching. > > Alloy S Ihuah PhD > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> > To: Epistemology <epistemology@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 4:21:23 AM > Subject: [epistemology 11716] The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and > > the Mathematics, Section 11, Update November 22, 2010 > > The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, > Modified June 6, 2009, October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, June 19, 2010 > John Lawrence Reed, Jr. Section 11, August 30, 2010 > > Update November 22, 2010 > > The Subjective Aspect of Mass (in Brief) > > The mathematics describes least action stable and near stable systems > well. I have shown that Isaac Newton defined celestial centripetal > force in units proportional to planet (and moon) surface object mass, > using the least action property of a circular orbit, as it applied to > the least action property of Kepler's Law of Areas. This, to > generalize his notion for a universal gravitational force. I have > shown the connection between Kepler's laws and least action motion, > where surface planet mass is independent of the celestial frame. (See > Section 4, this series of posts.) > > I have noted the example [.5mv^2] and [mv] and [pir^2] and [2pir]. In > the calculus classical energy and classical momentum are analogous to > the efficient relationship exhibited by the Euclidean circle area and > its boundary. With the least action consistent mathematics, we should > expect there to be a retained consistent relationship that speaks to > least action efficient systems, across the board. Not necessarily to > mass across the board, since in at least one frame, the celestial, > terrestrial (surface planet object) mass is independent, ie. all > objects freefall, orbit and escape from a planet and/or moon at the > same rate, regardless of mass (depending only on least action > consistent, distance and time units). > > Therefore we cannot proportionally generalize mass (as an amount of > matter) measured at the terrestrial classical frame, to the celestial > frame, based solely on distance and time units, merely because the > resistance planet surface mass represents is equivalent to a > (resistance) force we feel (the equal and opposite third law). And we > cannot generalize a force we feel to the entire least action > consistent celestial universe merely because we feel it and it's > scalar component is conserved terrestrially and on celestial planet > and moon surface matter. > > The functional celestial vector is a consequence of the least action > consistent stable universe motion and the least action consistent > mathematics. The planet and moon surface "mass in motion" vector is > also a consequence of that least action motion because the planet > attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. Therefore, planet and moon > surface mass represents the conserved cumulative resistance of atoms. > I conclude that the celestial order we observe is not a universal > consequence of conserved planet and moon surface mass (what we measure > and feel). > > Consequently I engaged in an extended search for a way to show that > the planet attractor acted on atoms and not on mass. After some 12-15 > years with this I had come to the tentative conclusion that we cannot > tell the difference, so either approach is functional. Clearly a sad > place to leave it after all the time invested. > > Then one day the connection between Avogadro, the balance scale and > the periodic table reminded me that I can determine a specific number > of atoms if I have the mass of a pure element. So there is a direct > conversion for planet surface mass as resistance, to planet surface > mass as a number of atoms. > > Therefore, 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 > relative atomic weight of a single atom of the element. > > In so far as the above is correct, then on any planet or moon surface, > [F] can be set precisely equivalent (pretty near) in objective terms > to a “number” of element specific atoms, again, provided we are > weighing pure compounds or elements. > > A number of element specific atoms represent an “amount of matter” in > a more objective conceptual (and precisely quantitative) manner, than > our planet and moon surface, quantitative but subjective, and > therefore centrist notion of “resistance”, as "an amount of > matter" [m]. > > 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 > physical analysis of samples of planet and moon surface matter. A > prediction. > > It follows then that since conserved planet and moon surface mass can > be set equivalent to the quantitative measure of the, 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. > > Our notion that a universal force (that we quantitatively measure in > conserved units that we as planet surface inertial objects feel) is > acting on conserved planet and moon surface mass is subjectively > functional but nonetheless false. The attraction is on atoms. > Therefore I submit that what we call gravity is a super form of > electro magnetism that acts on all atoms, not just those atoms that > are internally and externally optimally alligned. > > johnreed > > I have made it easier to reference my supporting work by creating a > Google Science and Technology Group titled: "The Least Action > Consistent Universe and the Mathematics". Currently it contains > Sections 1 through 9 for reference. The many sub-sections and work > prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as I > have the time and gain familiarity with the venue. Meanwhile my more > recent work is available for public review to all, and open to > criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. This is a > condition established by Google and newsgroups in general. I seek no > recruits. I provide information. However, there are no restrictions > or requirements to join. Current web > address:http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed > If you respond to this post from a newsgroup other than the above, > please send a copy to randama...@yahoo.com, if you want a timely > response. Thanks. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
