jr writes> I'll have to take some time with this to do it justice. I will get back. Have a good time. johnreed
On May 18, 9:54 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I did too... but finally got to the wikipedia sight when I waited for > it.... > > anyway... it's just a wiki entry... that contains among other info a > chart of the Periodic Table with atomic weights of elements.. > I don't know science for much... but I'm wondering,,, don't atomic > weights (or the process of arriving at them) answer the point that you > are trying to make? > > Maybe you can rephrase the issue or the theoretical problem in a > better way so that a "layperson" like me can better understand the > "unknown" part, the possible alternative solutions... be it in fact , > theory... method... whatever... I like a good puzzle. > > On May 18, 11:59 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I get redirected when I click on your URL. > > jr > > > On May 17, 4:32 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_weight > > > > On May 16, 11:39 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > jr writes> Thanks. It grew on me. I'll try to be clearer. Have a good > > > > time. > > > > johnreed > > > > > On May 15, 1:48 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > The attempt to think differently is laudable JR - though I don't > > > > > follow it. > > > > > > On May 15, 3:42 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 12, 7:09 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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.
