I'm just a lowly nominalist sort of unscientific cowboy I guess.... Now get along... little dogey,,,, HAR
dogie do·gie [ dṓgee ] (plural do·gies) or do·gy [ dṓgee ] (plural do·gies) or do·gey [ dṓgee ] (plural do·geys) noun Definition: motherless calf: a calf with no mother On May 11, 8:13 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
