On May 11, 10:04 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > What about atoms of HELIUM?....HYDROGEN...LIGHTER THAN AIR? > Where are your "scales" located? > Smart-Ass....
jr writes> I guess the smart ass punctuation indicates that you have made an important point. > 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... jr writes> If we take the scale away from a source of attraction it will do nothing but what it was doing all along. The helium atom and the lead atom will also be doing what they were doing all along away from a source of attraction. On the other hand you can place a scale under the sea at the sea floor and weigh lead and gold. Unfortunately you can't weigh cork because it is lighter than the medium within which you are weighing. 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 jr writes> Your point has no bearing on the argument cowboy. > > 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.
