Too verbose. Jr writes> Too difficult for you to comprehend? Or just more than you bargained for?
A point that you seem to be miss is that typical scientists and engineers concisely express such things in mathematical language and few words. Jr writes> Yes. They only employ words when they use the mathematics to explain concepts that are incomprehensible. And then they profess the validity of multi=dimensional universes, time travel, curved space, black holes, worm holes, etc. They identify objects and phenomena they observe in terms of the fantasies their math led them to. Books of such attempts exist. Their success is often measured by their ability to manipulate material reality and get payed for it. Jr writes> The US has become a nation where the financiers get paid and the economy is now broken. Getting paid for destroying a nation is a result of ignorance. They manipulate the money and produce nothing. The repuglicans and democrats have no clue. Learning requires effort. Articulated ideas are too verbose for them. Slogans are preferred. contrast, a philosopher typically measures success by peer approval and not so much get payed for it. Jr writes> I seek nothing from you or the likes of you. I provide information. You can take it or leave it. I answer you here only for the benefit of other readers. I would prefer not to answer you again. Sow ears do not grow into silk purses. That’s not too verbose. As I recall, the philosophy teachers at Illinois Institute of Technology, circa 1982, were the lowest payed teachers, but, had an unusual perk of being allowed to openly serve and drink liquor during department meetings on campus. Jr writes> Articulation on complex points is one thing. Verbosity to sound clever to others is vacuous ego. Please spare us all here, this kind of crap. Instead come over to a real physics group and try this garbage out. On Nov 30, 8:42 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > Too verbose. A point that you seem to be miss is that typical > scientists and engineers concisely express such things in mathematical > language and few words. Their success is often measured by their > ability to manipulate material reality and get payed for it. In > contrast, a philosopher typically measures success by peer approval > and not so much get payed for it. As I recall, the philosophy > teachers at Illinois Institute of Technology, circa 1982, were the > lowest payed teachers, but, had an unusual perk of being allowed to > openly serve and drink liquor during department meetings on campus. > > On Nov 29, 3:24 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > aruzinsky > > johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > "My questions are rhetorical meant to point out that the planet > > attractor acts on atoms and not on mass." - > > How do you know that past experiments have not proved that gravity > > acts on individual electrons, protons and neutrons? > > > jr writes> If you assume that the force you feel acting on you is the > > force that acts on the universe, you need not prove anything beyond > > that which supports your assumption. We cannot prove that electrons > > and neutrons exist in particle form inside the atom. We can prove that > > protons exist in particle form inside the universe. > > > Or, is this a semantic argument, in which case, a better wording > > would > > be, "gravity produces a force on matter in proportion to its mass."? > > > jr writes> A semantic argument? Do you mean that a logical progression > > of words is open to one's interpretation? If so, I agree. And I > > conclude that word definition must be precise in meaning. However, we > > move right along with inprecise definitions as a consequence of > > rigorous, least action consistent, mathematical convenience. Your > > better wording statement includes "gravity, force, matter and mass". > > My work, in part, seeks to define these nebulous often foggily > > exchanged, least action consistent words, precisely. > > > Let's take weight and mass, the quantities of gravity and force. We > > use a balance scale to measure what we feel as weight [mg]. I must > > show that the balance scale itself does not measure weight. The > > balance scale, on balance, retains its balance at every location it > > can be used. What we feel however, weight [mg], changes depending on > > location. So the balance scale compares the resistive component mass > > [m] (the cumulative resistance of atoms) at any location. We feel its > > weight [mg] at any location. What we feel is measured as a direct > > consequence of [mg].. Mass is invariant. Where [mg] varies with > > location. So mass [m] is the conserved quantity on the balance scale. > > Where [mg] is what we feel at any location. What we feel is always > > equal and opposite to the resistance we encounter. > > > Now [g] is a measure of acceleration that changes with location (and > > time). This accelerative component, suitably defined, is a vector > > component, that describes least action consistent motion. This > > component [g] is therefore applicable to the least action consistent > > stable system universe motion we observe. Since mass [m] is > > independent of the celestial least action consistent mathematics, [mg] > > is a function of where we can measure it. This makes the force we feel > > [mg] a mathematical consequence of the product of an independent > > invariant mass [m] and a least action consistent component [g]. > > > Now, rather than to just assume that mass is conserved with respect to > > celestial object motion and can be proportionalized to that motion > > based on measured planet surface object mass magnitudes, we should > > first note that we can place any surface planet object in to any > > available orbit we choose where two objects with different mass can > > occupy the same orbit independent of mass. And then we must consider > > the third law. The equal and opposite law. > > > We have learned that surface planet object mass is conserved say, > > during impact collisions. That is to say that in these experiments MA > > = ma, before and after collision so that, say, Ma = mA. Where we are > > inertial objects and that what we feel Ma or [mA] or [mg] will be > > equal to the resistance we encounter or which we act on. So the force > > we feel [mg], [Ma], or [mA] where we are planet surface inertial > > objects is equal and opposite to the resistance we encounter. > > > Historically the quantity mass [m] has been derived from the quantity > > we feel [ma] or [mg]. Where mass [m] represents a resistance that is > > invariant and [g] is an accelerative component that is consistent with > > least action motion anywhere. Instead of continuing to define the > > invariant quantity mass as a consequence of the variant force we feel, > > it is necessary to investigate mass [m] more thoroughly. > > > I have so much time allotted for answering physics questions these > > days. You should be able to utilize this post to come to further > > conclusions yourself or to challenge it which will provide me a > > direction. Thanks. Have a good time. > > johnreed > > > On Nov 26, 1:43 pm, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > "My questions are rhetorical meant to point out that the planet > > > attractor acts on atoms and not on mass." - > > > > How do you know that past experiments have not proved that gravity > > > acts on individual electrons, protons and neutrons? > > > > Or, is this a semantic argument, in which case, a better wording would > > > be, "gravity produces a force on matter in proportion to its mass."? > > > > On Nov 19, 12:59 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > On Nov 18, 3:21 pm, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 18, 1:49 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Consider a pure element. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Is this uniform action on each atom a consequence of each atom being > > > > > > identical in the pure object? > > > > > > Not all the atoms are necessarily identical because you failed to > > > > > stipulate pure isotope. > > > > > jr writes> > > > > Forgive me. I stated "pure element". That could confuse someone. I > > > > will restate it as follows: A pure element consisting of one isotope. > > > > A bit redundant but that's OK. This is a short post considering the > > > > info it contains... My questions are rhetorical meant to point out > > > > that the planet attractor acts on atoms and not on mass. A > > > > significant difference. Have a good time. > > > > johnreed- 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.
