Do you know what energy is? If we knew what that phenomenon is...this dialogue would not b there.
On May 20, 2011 8:03 PM, "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 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. > -- 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.
