The significance here is that an attraction on atoms, instead of the mass of the atoms (us) is a super-electromagnetic attraction generated by large aggregates of matter in cases, and large aggregates of dynamically cored planets and stars in all cases.) / jr
large aggregates of matter..... vs..... dynamically cored planets and stars I think I know the answer..... matter.... all aggregates of it whether large or small....appear capable of generating some amount of gravity... Am I right or wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force I seem to remember that "force"... can be separated into various sorts... gravity...electromagnetic ... and nuclear... then there are other "use" forces as applied in Physics.... Electromagnetic and nuclear forces appear to have been understood enough to put them to certain "uses"....but gravity seems to remain relatively unknown or un-understood....at least in its physical nature if not in its effects.... Can you or your rhetorical question shed some insight into the physical nature of gravity, jr? On May 21, 2:32 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...@gmail.com> wrote: > jr writes> What we feel is a Force we exert on a resistance to our > effort. The planet attractor acts on all atoms, not just the optimally > structured and arranged atoms we associate with electromagnetism. We > feel the attraction on our atoms as resistance and we call it gravity > and think it is acting on us (we think the force we feel is acting on > us instead of acting on our atoms where we feel the cumulative > resistance to the action on our atoms as we work against it). The > significance here is that an attraction on atoms, instead of the mass > of the atoms (us) is a super-electromagnetic attraction generated by > large aggregates of matter in cases, and large aggregates of > dynamically cored planets and stars in all cases.) > > We feel electromagnetism generated by the optimally internally and > externally arranged atoms as magnetism when we hold a magnet near a > suitable object. The electricity that passes through our body, can > kill us as it structurally changes our atoms to enable the passage of > current. Gravity is the manifestation of the attraction on all atoms > however arranged. > > Does this eliminate the contradiction so far. Note I am not asking you > to agree with me. Only want to know if the self contradiction is > elliminated. > Thanks. > johnreed > > On May 20, 10:03 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
