jr writes If you assume that an attraction called gravity exists between objects in general, because you feel an attraction toward the planet that is equal and opposite to the effort (Force) you apply… and if you want to generalize the effort you apply to the entire inanimate universe as an effort that acts on you by the inanimate universe, the universe can be successfully negotiated in terms that you work against ie, Force which is defined as the product [mass times gravitational acceleration] or [mg]. Since the universe can be negotiated with these concepts we have a pragmatic reason to insure that these concepts are well taught and anything that contradicts the actual veracity of the concepts must do so in an all inclusive manner.
The fact that you can lift a chunk of the planet say, a rock, and it is equal and opposite to your effort and therefore equal and opposite to the effort of the planet means that the planet acts on mass with the effort you apply in all cases. Our convenient mathematical term called mass [m] can be used quantitatively to account for this. A fact that a planet exerts the precise amount of Force [mg] that you exert to lift any part of the planet allows us to declare that our effort is equal and opposite to the action of the planet. Joe’s effort, Tom’s effort, your and my effort… all equal and opposite to the effort of the planet. The planet just knows how to adjust to our effort when we think that the planet acts on mass. But of course the resistance must be equal and opposite to the effort we expend. So let’s do some impact experiments in terms of the Force called weight which is also called [mg] but becomes [ma] when working free of the so called gravitational force with quantities like [mv] momentum.. [a] and [g] represent acceleration. [v] is velocity. [m] represents mass. What we know for certain about gravity is that it is a Force that we feel. It’s magnitude [mg] depends on the product of the magnitude of [m] which does not change with location [g] or [a] which do change with location [g] or [a]. In the case of [g] an increase occurs until it impacts with the planet. In the case of [a] a decrease occurs absent a source of self power. Both an increase and a decrease in speed or velocity change is regarded as acceleration. 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... . jr writes> Yes Force is a term we understand. A term we feel. Gravity is something we feel and initiate in response to something that acts on us. We understand electromagnetic force as a force that acts between atoms. It was once believed that the atoms must be a certain type with a certain ordered internal and external arrangement, to be subject to or to generate electromagnetism. We have created plastic that acts like magnets by modifying a quantity we call spin. Nuclear Force has been demonstrated and no one doubts it’s existence. Force is something we can feel in all cases. The question is: is the force we feel a consequence of an applied Force an inanimate object feels? When we lift an item is the planet exerting a force on mass that is equal and opposite to the force we exert? Does this mysterious but functional idea have to be correct? Or can there be another “logical” explanation? One can ask why does the quantity mass work so well in conjunction with velocity [v] and acceleration [a] and [g]? We know that given a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate. A heavy object falls no faster than a light object. On a balance scale it takes more of the lighter objects to balance a heavier object. So we are not balancing the falling part of the object which is [g]. All objects do [g] at the same rate depending on location. The balance scale it self is being acted on by [g] equivalently at location. So what we are comparing is the mass of the objects on the balance scale. How does weight figure here? The balance scale does not measure weight. Weight changes with location but as you move the balance scale around, you cannot detect this change. The balance scale will balance the same items here or on the moon. But the weight will be heavier here and easier for us to lift on the moon. What has changed is [g] not [m]. [mg] weight has changed also but the balance scale will not show this unless we are lifting the entire apparatus.. However we can weigh say 2 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen anywhere and have the atomic weight, rather molecular weight of water H2O. An amount of water of 1 atom has a mass of 18 which consists of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. Hydrogen has a mass of 1 oxygen 16. 2 pounds of hydrogen + 16 pounds of oxygen will make 18 pounds of water theoretically. Or 2 grams and 16 grams will make 18 grams theoretically. So when we measure these amounts on the balance scale we are measuring gram atomic and gram molecular weights (mass) but the balance scale is comparing atoms and molecules. Therefore the planet attractor is acting on atoms and molecules. 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? jr writes> It’s tuff. I can try. Been trying a long time. It just boils down to the fact that what we feel is the cumulative sum of the attraction on our atoms. The planet attractor acts on atoms. The balance scale compares the relative mass of each atom on balance. Feel free to tear everything I say apart. I do better that way. Have a good time. johnreed On May 23, 8:18 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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.
