You did not read carefully. That's exactly what I said, to wit, that the nature of mass is an abstract, mathematical coefficient void of any physical meaning (reserved for observables).
Jr writes> Hello Georges. Good to have you back. However, I recall seeing this near exact response one, two maybe even three years ago. What you say reduces to the fact that the words we use to define the physicalness of the universe around us are dependent on our senses. When we find a word that represents meaning to us that is also “mathematically” conserved, we think we are on to something, and as we develop the math we can predict more somethings, and more possible somethings, but in the end we have no greater comprehension than our understanding of our first conserved term, be it mass or be it energy, or be it momentum. What makes no sense is searching in it other mysterious natures, Jr writes> If you will take the time to strictly analyze my writing I seek only to make your convenient mathematical use of conserved quantities, explicit. To say that the resistance we work against always equals the force we apply, says nothing at all about the cause of the resistance we work against. Then assigning a name to that conserved resistance and blindly believing it is exalted because it is consistent with the least action consistent mathematics, when it is nothing more than resistance to our applied effort, is a bit subjective and centrist. . physical, metaphysical, pataphysical or what not. For instance, if you asked me, what is the nature of the "axial vector of magnetic field", I'd answer: Its physical nature is that of an observable, describing counter-clockwise rotation of magnetic angular momentum. Jr writes> What is this gobbledogook Georges. Do you really expect a physicist or mathematician that might answer this, to be on this group. And if she was do you think that this is a location she would choose to write such drivel. Its mathematical nature is that of an anti-symmetric tensor of rank 2. It happens to have in 3D SPACE 3 independent components, which makes it similar to a vector and allows to describe it in elementary handbooks as "axial vector", or "pseudo-vector", which, strictly speaking are misnomers. Jr writes> Good grief. I have to respond just to prevent you from leading the gullible and impressionable astray. I have yet to see you on any physics forum or group, much less any mathematical ones. You would be laughed out of the topics. What makes no sens is speculation about the pataphysical nature and reasons of the counter-clockwise structure of our "world" and about its clockwise structured shadow counter-world. Jr writes> Pure drivel. And that's mutatis mutandis what John seems to do, looking for pataphysical nature of mass. Jr writes> Mass = A measure of the cumulative resistance of atoms. Originally from the balance scale as a scalar component of force. This resistance is conserved and shows that the planet attractor acts uniformly on atoms. Its conserved nature (consistency in numerical results) was taken beyond the balance scale and generalized to matter throughout the least action consistent universe. Which definition opens us up to the electromagnetic nature of the universe, esp wrt gravity. On Dec 23 2010, 12:01 am, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> wrote: > --- On Wed, 12/22/10, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When you use the word "nature" the > > audience understands two: > > > The abstraction Nature, and also that thing that the word > > points to > > > Nature es also an abstraction, even so the John's question > > is valid as > > it is simple to understand the referenced object in his > > sentence > > > So it is valid to say "the nature of mass", mass and nature > > can be > > abstract concepts, but that does not mean "the nature of > > mass" makes > > no sense. > > ============ > G: > You did not read carefully. > That's exactly what I said, to wit, that the nature of mass is an > abstract, mathematical coefficient void of any physical meaning > (reserved for observables). > What makes no sense is searching in it other mysterious natures, > physical, metaphysical, pataphysical or what not. > > For instance, if you asked me, what is the nature of the > "axial vector of magnetic field", I'd answer: > > Its physical nature is that of an observable, describing > counter-clockwise rotation of magnetic angular momentum. > > Its mathematical nature is that of an anti-symmetric tensor of rank 2. > It happens to have in 3D SPACE 3 independent components, which makes > it similar to a vector and allows to describe it in elementary > handbooks as "axial vector", or "pseudo-vector", which, strictly > speaking are misnomers. > > What makes no sens is speculation about the pataphysical nature > and reasons of the counter-clockwise structure of our "world" > and about its clockwise structured shadow counter-world. > > And that's mutatis mutandis what John seems to do, looking for > pataphysical nature of mass. > > Georges. > ============== -- 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.
