What about atoms of HELIUM?....HYDROGEN...LIGHTER THAN AIR? Where are your "scales" located? Smart-Ass.... How many atoms of helium would you have to pile into any conceivable "pan" to balance a "pure" object....say consisting of a "mass" pound of lead... Do "lighter than air" atoms "float" in a vacuum?.....Vacuumed Compressed lighter than air elements could be gathered in sufficient quantity to amount to any mass "weight" , I suppose
On May 7, 2:38 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Consider a pure element. On a balance scale, imagine that we can place > one atom at a time in a pan. We have a standard calibrated mass in the > other pan. We can (theoretically) place one atom at a time in one pan > until it is balanced against the standard mass in the other pan. When > we lift either the pan with atoms or the pan with the standard mass we > feel weight. We feel the combination [mg] at location [g] > > We feel at location [g], the cumulative resistance (mass) of the > number of atoms in the pure object pan at that location. In this > example the balance scale compares the resistance of a quantity of > atoms to the resistance of a quantity of matter calibrated in mass > units. Each atom in the pure object pan is uniformly acted upon by the > planet attractor. > > Is each atom in the calibrated object pan also uniformly acted upon by > the planet attractor? In other words; Is this uniform action on each > atom a consequence of each atom being identical in the pure object? Or > is it a consequence of the planet attractor’s uniform action on atoms > in general? The number of atoms in each pan need not be the same. > > In the pure atom pan we are measuring the cumulative resistance of the > number of atoms. Without digressing into the reason we use the > conserved unit “mass” in the first place, in this case we call this > “mass” because we are measuring the cumulative comparative resistance > of atoms in the pure object pan against the object in the pan > calibrated in mass units. > > Is the mass of the calibrated object also the cumulative resistance of > the atoms in that object? Do all objects fall at the same rate? > > Answer by critic: > > > instead of talking of the "cumulative resistance" you should talk of > > the total energy. It is improper to talk about "resistance" wrt to > > gravitation. In physics "resistance" has a completely different meaning. > > Speak instead of gravitational acceleration or even gravitational force (if > > you must). > > Jr writes> I am trying to separate our subjective interpretation of > physical phenomena from the objective events in the universe. Our > generalization of Force [F] (as something we feel), to the inanimate > universe in general, as something it feels, is quite absurd on the > face. > However wrt the use of the term “resistance”: > > Begin quote > "Mass is defined by the resistance that a body opposes to its > acceleration (inert mass). It is also measured by the weight of the > body (heavy mass). That these two radically different definitions > lead > to the same value for the mass of a body is, in itself, an > astonishing > fact." > End quote: Albert Einstein > > Jr writes> .If we define mass [m] as a cumulative resistance of atoms > (amount of matter) the “astonishing” aspect of the equivalence between > inertia and weight evaporates. > > We can eliminate the “uniform gravitational field” by a planet’s > uniform attractive action on atoms and parts of atoms. It is a major > conceptual change where the functional existing mathematics is > retained. Which provides a segue into an understanding of an > electromagnetic universe that we as inertial objects have to date > defined in quantities of that universe that we feel and so work > against. My rhetorical question here suggests that all objects fall at > the same rate. johnreed -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@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.
