When we are falling toward the earth we are traveling in the same direction as the earth is pulling on our atoms. .....
We call this force the pull of gravity and think it acts on us, when we are the sole source of the force we feel. Sounds a bit contradictory here.... Earth is pulling our atoms.... versus....we are the sole source of the force we feel" which is it... is gravity in or from the Earth? Is gravity in or from each one of Us (objects)? is gravity some sort of interplay between various objects all of which have "gravity but some of which have more gravity that (somehow smaller or at least less "gravity heavy' than) others ? On May 20, 4:38 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > jr writes> > Humanity has been using a balance scale for more than 6000 years. Even > so humanity believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter > objects as little as 700 years ago. So for 5300 years mankind made use > of a tool that could not work if all objects did not fall at the same > rate regardless of their weight. Today this fact is not taken into > consideration. Instead we have Eotvos experiments to verify that yes > all objects do fall at the same rate. It still baffles much of > humanity that this is so. Including most physicists. Where the fact > that mass can be isolated on the balance scale proves that all objects > MUST fall at the same rate. It also shows why so called gravitational > mass is equivalent to inertial mass, where Einstein just up and > declared the equivalence as a principle. Which locked gravity in as a > fundamental controlling force of the universe. > > Many would want to argue these points. Where we need only to think. > > Aristotle was familiar with the balance scale. He used it to compare > the weights of things so it was easy to think that heavier objects > fall faster than lighter objects, even though if heavier objects fall > faster than lighter objects we could not use a balance scale to > isolate the quantity mass. In fact if heavier objects fall faster > than lighter objects we could not exist. I suspect that most > physicists today do not understand this simple bit of logic. > > So I will open the discussion on this note. Just to see where we are > at. Many can figure this out just by having their coats pulled. Many > will deny it outright. It changes everything if what I say is fact. > > If heavier objects fall faster this would mean that all we would have > to do when falling is hold someone’s hand to increase our rate of > falling. Our weight is felt only when we are pressed against the earth > or moving away from the earth. When we are falling toward the earth we > are traveling in the same direction as the earth is pulling on our > atoms. So we feel only air resistance. When we are accelerating away > from the earth we are acting against the attractive action on our > atoms so we feel a force. We call this force the pull of gravity and > think it acts on us, when we are the sole source of the force we feel. > > I will continue if no arguments occur here. I will continue if > arguments are put forward. It is better that the arguments are put > forward as they occur. Have a good time. > johnreed > > On May 19, 12:22 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
