Maybe "gravity heavy" is itself confusing....let me amend that to "gravity strong".....
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.
