johnreed

2011-03-21 22:16:21 UTC

The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics

Modified October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, January 11, 2011

March 21, 2011

John Lawrence Reed, Jr.

Section 18b

The Subjective Aspect of Mass

I have argued that with respect to the kinematics of natural stable

physical systems stability in the field requires efficient cyclic

motion. I have also argued that the mathematics describes the stable

universe well because the mathematics easily represents the efficient

(least action) properties of stable physical systems.

I have shown that Isaac Newton defined celestial centripetal force in

units proportional to planet (and moon) surface object mass, using (1)

the least action property of a circular orbit, as it applied to the

least action property of Kepler's Law of Areas[*] and (2) that the

Force we apply [F] is equal and opposite [F=mg] to the resistance we

encounter [mg] and/or [ma], at any location in space [g]. This, to

generalize his notion for a universal gravitational force based on the

resistance we work against weight [mg] and the conservation[**] of

planet surface object mass [m] (also resistance).

I have shown the connection between Kepler's laws and least action

motion, where surface planet object mass is independent of the

celestial frame. For example, increasing the orbit speed of a body by

a factor of [sqrt 2] will cause any orbiting body to escape its orbit,

regardless of the mass of the body and the mass of the planet.

Further, we cannot choose the orbit speed [s/t] independent of the

radius of the orbit [r], where we can choose the orbit speed [s/t]

largely independent of the mass of the orbiting body. (See Section 4,

this series of posts.).

I have noted the example [.5mv^2] and [mv], and [pir^2] and [2pir]. In

the calculus, classical energy and classical momentum are analogous to

the efficient relationship exhibited by the Euclidean circle area and

its boundary. Further, [4/3pir^3] and [4pir^2] for the volume of a

sphere and its surface area also obey the differential-integral rule.

This is perfectly general across least action physical and

mathematical relationships. We should expect there to be a retained

consistent mathematical relationship that speaks to least action

efficient systems and their properties across the board.

Not necessarily to mass across the board, since again, terrestrial

(surface planet object) mass is independent of the celestial frame,

ie. all objects freefall, orbit and escape from a given planet and/or

moon at the same rate, regardless of mass (depending objectively only

on least action consistent, distance and time units, and

“subjectively” on the Force [F] we, as “living” planet surface objects

(composed of atoms), ”feel”, initiate, apply and measure, when we act

on resistance [m].

In the sub-atomic frame, mass [m] resistance is not conserved. The

mass of an electron and proton taken separately is not the same as the

mass of the electron and proton joined as an element. As a consequence

in part, the notion of mass as a component of Force [F] from the

equation [F=mg] and [F=ma] was modified. Relativistic mass [m] was

defined in the expression [F={mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)}].

In order to maintain mass invariance with respect to our notion of

Force mass became the expression contained in the curly brackets { }

of the expression [F=d/dt {mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)}]. This to say that

Force [F] is the derivative with respect to time of the momentum of

the object. We continue to define mass (as a scalar component of

Force) here in terms of momentum: where momentum can only be verified

with respect to planet surface objects and where mass is independent

of the celestial frame.

With no further speculation here: note that our response [F] to planet

surface object resistance [mg] is a Force [F] that is felt and

initiated by us.

The question is: should we continue to speculate that the Force [F] we

feel in response to a resistance we encounter measured in conserved

units of that resistance [m] as weight [mg], is the force that is

attracting matter to the planet?

Does the fact that the Force [F] we apply and think is acting on us is

always equal and opposite to our weight [mg] mean that the Force [F]

of attraction from the planet is acting on what we think we feel mass

[m] as the material part of our weight in [mg]? Our mass does not

change [g] changes. Since mass does not change might mass represent

the conserved resistance of a finite amount of matter? The conserved

resistance of say, a specific number and type of atom(s)?

Can we generalize a Force [F] we apply to a resistance [m] as equal

and opposite to [mg] to the entire least action consistent, inanimate,

celestial universe because we feel the Force [F] we apply to the

resistance [m] at any location in space [g] where the scalar component

[m] of the resistance [mg] is conserved independently terrestrially

and in celestial planet and moon surface matter interactions?

The resistance of a planet surface object's mass as [mg] and [ma] is

equivalent to a Force [F] we, as living surface planet inertial

objects apply, measure, and feel, at any location in space by

definition [F=mg]. We have defined the resistance we act on [mg] as

equal and opposite to a Force [F] we apply. Does applying effort to

lift something we can quantify in units as [mg] mean that the planet

attractor unequivocally acts on and/or is generated by [mg]?

It’s easy to grasp the fact that each of our individual and varied

weights [mg] are equal and opposite to a Force [F] we each feel

[F=mg]. Calling the Force [F] we each feel “gravity” and generalizing

it as equal and opposite to the Force the planet exerts [Mg1] on us

[Mg1=mg] … is convenient, largely inconsequential and wholly

subjective.

Where in fact, if the planet attractor acts uniformly on our atoms, we

each work against the resistance of our atoms [m], quantified for any

location in space as [mg], which we can measure on the balance scale

Moreover if the attraction acted on [m] or [mg] an increase in [m]

would cause an increased attraction. Where in fact when we increase

[m] our weight [mg] increases and we hold the planet attractor Force

[F] conveniently equivalent to the increase we feel. Where the equal

and opposite condition is maintained by the increase in the number of

atoms comprising the mass and our additional applied effort on the

resistance.

To rephrase the question: Can we proportionally generalize mass (as a

conserved resistive amount of matter measured at the terrestrial or

planet and moon surface classical frame), to the celestial (moon to

planet, planet to sun) frame, merely based on least action consistent,

planet surface object, distance and time units, where planet surface

object mass [m] is significant with respect to a resistance [mg] we as

planet surface objects feel, but is nonetheless independent with

respect to the celestial frame. Mass [m] does not change [g] changes.

If the planet were alive the Force it could feel would be the Force

exerted by the smaller object. Just like a baseball flying through

the air will strike your head with a Force [ma]. So too will a

falling baseball strike your head with a Force [mg].

I don’t want to abandon but to expand on, the tools and concepts we

use in our physical science. The functional celestial vector is a

consequence of [1] the least action consistent stable universe motion,

and [2] the independence of planet surface object mass with respect to

that motion, and [3] the least action consistent mathematics.

The planet and moon surface object conserved "mass in motion" vector

is also a consequence of the least action consistent celestial motion

because the planet attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. In either

case, the celestial or the planet surface object case, planet surface

object mass is independent with respect to the planet and celestial

attractor action. Since we are planet surface objects our mass is

independent with respect to the planet and celestial attractor

action. The planet attractor is not acting on our mass. . We do not

work against the resistance of the planet [Mg]. We work against the

attraction of the planet. That attraction is super electromagnetic

acting on all atoms uniformly.

However, Planet surface object mass [m] is not independent with

respect to a Force [F] that we, as living planet surface objects apply

and can measure and feel. We can quantitatively define the resistance

we act on as equal and opposite to a Force we feel [F = mg]. This

works well because we are planet surface objects and mass [m] is

emergent in the planet attractor field that acts uniformly on all

atoms. Our applied effort [F] can be quantized against the conserved

resistance [m] we feel at any location in space as [mg]..

Again, in a least action consistent stable universe, where planet

surface object mass [m] is independent of the celestial frame, can we

proportionally generalize planet surface object mass [m] to celestial,

planet, moon and star masses [M], based solely on common cross frame

least action characteristics of their respective motions? Is this

justified beyond its subjective and pragmatic functionality? The

question appears to rest on whether or not it can be shown that the

balance scale compares the resistance of atoms in units of mass [m],

which we interpret in terms of Force [F] as weight [mg].

A thought experiment:

Consider a pure, one isotope 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

represented quantitatively as the product [mg] at location [g]. The

quantity [g] represents an acceleration that is dependent on a

distance from centers of various densities.

In this thought experiment, we observe that the balance scale compares

the resistance of a quantity of atoms to the resistance of a quantity

of matter calibrated in mass units. Given that the thought experiment

is valid, it seems clear that we feel (work against) at location [g],

the cumulative resistance (mass [m]) of the number of atoms in the

pure object pan at that location. The number of atoms, like the mass,

is a function of density. This density has historically been seen as a

function of gravitational Force [F], the Force we apply and

(supposedly) work against.

I have shown that mass [m] represents the cumulative resistance of

planet surface atoms, as measured on the balance scale. Planet and

moon surface object mass [m] represents the conserved cumulative

resistance of uniformly acted upon atoms. We define this resistance in

mass units. The action of the balance scale, on balance, speaks to the

uniform attractive action on the contents of each pan. The balance

scale does not tell us what kind of attractive action is acting on the

pan. We can look at it subjectively as though it is a uniform

attraction on mass [m] (as Newton did with gravity), or a uniform

attraction on atoms (where Newton did not require any greater

distinction than mass [m]). In either view, mass units are conserved.

Question: What is it about mass [m] that allows this?

Answer: The planet attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. Mass [m] is

the unit of measure of the conserved, emergent, cumulative resistance

of a number of atoms.

The uniform attraction on atoms creates a field that is equivalent to

an unencumbered field with respect to mass [m]. Each atom in the pure

object pan is uniformly acted upon by the planet attractor. If each

atom was not acted upon uniformly by the planet attractor, regardless

of the atom's mass, we would not be able to acquire a balance of mass

[m] using the balance scale. Nor could we isolate mass [m] in impact

collisions. All we could acquire is a balance of weight [w], in the

event we could even exist.

All we need do is duplicate the time space parameters to place any of

our planet and moon surface objects into semi-permanent orbits. The

Force [F] we apply to do this is on the cumulative resistance of the

atoms [m] composing the object, at any location in space [g] . Setting

the conserved and emergent cumulative resistance [m] of an orbiting

say, baseball's atoms, equal and opposite to the cumulative resistance

[M] of the atoms composing say, the planet Earth, is an erroneous and

occult, but functional indulgence, arising from the successful

prediction of "least action" time and space parameters in conjunction

with the fact that planet surface object mass [m] is independent of

the celestial frame.

This provides us erroneous validation for the faulty premise put

forward by Isaac Newton that: "Since it is true (the proportional

conservation of planet surface object mass [m]) for all matter we can

measure, it is true for all matter whatsoever." Paraphrased. With

circumspect thought this is simply not warranted.

I conclude that the celestial order we observe is not a universal

consequence of conserved planet and moon surface object mass [m]

resistance (what we as planet and moon surface living inertial

objects, apply, measure and feel as Force [F]).

I also conclude that black holes are a non-existent fantasy based on

our present subjective, quantitative but intellectually primitive

gravitational beliefs. The supposed fact that we have "discovered"

black holes in distant space notwithstanding. Rather, we see what we

expect to see.

The less we know for certain, the more we seem to think we know, and

as a result of obscure observations, the more we try to extend our

infirm knowledge to the rest of the universe, in the likeness of

ourselves. The fact that we begin and end causes us to assume that all

things begin and end. The rarest of supporting observations provide us

"evidentiary proof" for our subjective notions. Which notions insure

that we continue in our intellectually restricted theoretical mode.

Consequently I engaged in an extended search for a way to show that

the planet attractor acted on atoms and not on mass [m]. After some

12-15 years of unsupported and discouraged research on this, I had

come to the tentative conclusion that we cannot tell the difference,

so either approach is functional. Clearly a sad place to leave it

after all the time invested.

Then one day the connection between Avogadro, the balance scale and

the periodic table reminded me that I can determine a specific number

of atoms if I have the mass of a pure element. So there is a direct

conversion for planet surface object mass as resistance, to planet

surface object mass as a number of atoms.

Therefore, I say, that in the case of pure compounds or elements

[F=mg] can be written as [F=nNmg], where [n] represents the number of

moles, [N] represents Avogadro’s number, and [mg] represents the

relative atomic weight of a single atom of the element.

In so far as the above is correct, then on any planet or moon surface,

the force we feel, apply and measure [F], can be set precisely

equivalent (pretty near) in objective terms, to a “number” of element

specific atoms, again, provided we are weighing pure compounds or

elements.

A number of element specific atoms represent an “amount of matter” in

a more objective conceptual (and precisely quantitative) manner, than

our planet and moon surface object, quantitative but "subjective", and

therefore "centrist" notion of “resistance”, as "an amount of

matter" [m].

Although in cases other than pure elements or compounds, the mass of

the object alone will not provide us a means to calculate the number

of atoms in the object, the principle itself should generalize to all

experimental physical analysis of samples of planet and moon surface

matter. A prediction.

It follows then that since conserved planet and moon surface object

mass can be set equivalent to the quantitative measure of the

cumulative resistance of a planet surface, inertial object's atoms

(that we measure and feel), and since we are living planet surface

inertial objects, then what we measure and feel and call gravitational

force, is the accelerated, conserved, cumulative resistance of a

planet (or moon) surface inertial object's atoms. This includes the

atoms that make up our bodies and the atoms in the bowling ball (etc.)

that we lift.

Our notion that a universal force (that we quantitatively measure in

conserved, planet surface object mass units in motion, that we as

living planet surface inertial objects initiate, apply, and/or, feel)

is acting on conserved planet and moon surface mass, is subjectively

functional (mass is not independent of the force that we feel) but

nonetheless false. We initiate, apply and feel "the so called

gravitational force". The attraction is on atoms.

Therefore I submit that what we call gravity is a super form of

electro magnetism that acts on all atoms, not just those “special

case” atoms that are internally and externally optimally alligned.

Endnote

[1] Where mass is the conserved cumulative resistance of planet and

moon surface object atoms and is conserved independently of the

celestial least action motion. Recall that we have spin angular

momentum and linear momentum from Newton’s first law. We don’t have

orbital angular momentum from that law. We acquire orbital angular

momentum from Newton’s mathematical derivation for centripetal force

where he used a perfect circle and perfect motion to argue for

centripetal acceleration.

The spinning perfect circle angular velocity is an artifact of the

uniformly spinning circle itself. The angular velocity of a spinning

disk, sphere, or solid object, is an artifact of the uniformly

spinning disk, sphere, or solid. So we have least action consistent

single object spin angular momentum in fact, and as an artifact of the

spinning perfect circle angular velocity.

Newton then used the least action consistent angular velocity of

Kepler’s empirical time controlled law of areas for 2 body planet

orbital motion, to mathematically carry his perfectly circular 2 body

uniform motion, spin angular momentum analog, to the planet’s non-

uniform 2 body orbital motion.

It’s based on time-space parameters where the emergent conserved

independent cumulative resistance of planet and moon surface atoms is

either designated as the cause of the least action consistent

celestial motion (Newton’s gravity), or as the consequence of the

least action consistent motion, as space-time curvature (Albert

Einstein and peers). This where planet surface object mass is

independent of the celestial frame.

[2] Historically the idea for the conservation of mass included its

mathematical invariance within its operation in the classical frame

and the attendant notion that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

So mass and matter were initially held as nearly synonymous in meaning

due to the fogginess surrounding the connecting thread. The balance

scale was and still is thought to represent a measure of gravitational

Force [F], or weight [mg].

johnreed

I have made it easier to reference my supporting work by creating a

Google Science and Technology Group titled: "The Least Action

Consistent Universe and the Mathematics". Currently it contains

Sections 1 through 9. The many sub-sections and work prior to 2007 has

not been included. I will develop it further as I have time and gain

familiarity with the venue.

Meanwhile it is available for public review to all, and open to

criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. No

restrictions or requirements to join.

Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed

Modified October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, January 11, 2011

March 21, 2011

John Lawrence Reed, Jr.

Section 18b

The Subjective Aspect of Mass

I have argued that with respect to the kinematics of natural stable

physical systems stability in the field requires efficient cyclic

motion. I have also argued that the mathematics describes the stable

universe well because the mathematics easily represents the efficient

(least action) properties of stable physical systems.

I have shown that Isaac Newton defined celestial centripetal force in

units proportional to planet (and moon) surface object mass, using (1)

the least action property of a circular orbit, as it applied to the

least action property of Kepler's Law of Areas[*] and (2) that the

Force we apply [F] is equal and opposite [F=mg] to the resistance we

encounter [mg] and/or [ma], at any location in space [g]. This, to

generalize his notion for a universal gravitational force based on the

resistance we work against weight [mg] and the conservation[**] of

planet surface object mass [m] (also resistance).

I have shown the connection between Kepler's laws and least action

motion, where surface planet object mass is independent of the

celestial frame. For example, increasing the orbit speed of a body by

a factor of [sqrt 2] will cause any orbiting body to escape its orbit,

regardless of the mass of the body and the mass of the planet.

Further, we cannot choose the orbit speed [s/t] independent of the

radius of the orbit [r], where we can choose the orbit speed [s/t]

largely independent of the mass of the orbiting body. (See Section 4,

this series of posts.).

I have noted the example [.5mv^2] and [mv], and [pir^2] and [2pir]. In

the calculus, classical energy and classical momentum are analogous to

the efficient relationship exhibited by the Euclidean circle area and

its boundary. Further, [4/3pir^3] and [4pir^2] for the volume of a

sphere and its surface area also obey the differential-integral rule.

This is perfectly general across least action physical and

mathematical relationships. We should expect there to be a retained

consistent mathematical relationship that speaks to least action

efficient systems and their properties across the board.

Not necessarily to mass across the board, since again, terrestrial

(surface planet object) mass is independent of the celestial frame,

ie. all objects freefall, orbit and escape from a given planet and/or

moon at the same rate, regardless of mass (depending objectively only

on least action consistent, distance and time units, and

“subjectively” on the Force [F] we, as “living” planet surface objects

(composed of atoms), ”feel”, initiate, apply and measure, when we act

on resistance [m].

In the sub-atomic frame, mass [m] resistance is not conserved. The

mass of an electron and proton taken separately is not the same as the

mass of the electron and proton joined as an element. As a consequence

in part, the notion of mass as a component of Force [F] from the

equation [F=mg] and [F=ma] was modified. Relativistic mass [m] was

defined in the expression [F={mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)}].

In order to maintain mass invariance with respect to our notion of

Force mass became the expression contained in the curly brackets { }

of the expression [F=d/dt {mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)}]. This to say that

Force [F] is the derivative with respect to time of the momentum of

the object. We continue to define mass (as a scalar component of

Force) here in terms of momentum: where momentum can only be verified

with respect to planet surface objects and where mass is independent

of the celestial frame.

With no further speculation here: note that our response [F] to planet

surface object resistance [mg] is a Force [F] that is felt and

initiated by us.

The question is: should we continue to speculate that the Force [F] we

feel in response to a resistance we encounter measured in conserved

units of that resistance [m] as weight [mg], is the force that is

attracting matter to the planet?

Does the fact that the Force [F] we apply and think is acting on us is

always equal and opposite to our weight [mg] mean that the Force [F]

of attraction from the planet is acting on what we think we feel mass

[m] as the material part of our weight in [mg]? Our mass does not

change [g] changes. Since mass does not change might mass represent

the conserved resistance of a finite amount of matter? The conserved

resistance of say, a specific number and type of atom(s)?

Can we generalize a Force [F] we apply to a resistance [m] as equal

and opposite to [mg] to the entire least action consistent, inanimate,

celestial universe because we feel the Force [F] we apply to the

resistance [m] at any location in space [g] where the scalar component

[m] of the resistance [mg] is conserved independently terrestrially

and in celestial planet and moon surface matter interactions?

The resistance of a planet surface object's mass as [mg] and [ma] is

equivalent to a Force [F] we, as living surface planet inertial

objects apply, measure, and feel, at any location in space by

definition [F=mg]. We have defined the resistance we act on [mg] as

equal and opposite to a Force [F] we apply. Does applying effort to

lift something we can quantify in units as [mg] mean that the planet

attractor unequivocally acts on and/or is generated by [mg]?

It’s easy to grasp the fact that each of our individual and varied

weights [mg] are equal and opposite to a Force [F] we each feel

[F=mg]. Calling the Force [F] we each feel “gravity” and generalizing

it as equal and opposite to the Force the planet exerts [Mg1] on us

[Mg1=mg] … is convenient, largely inconsequential and wholly

subjective.

Where in fact, if the planet attractor acts uniformly on our atoms, we

each work against the resistance of our atoms [m], quantified for any

location in space as [mg], which we can measure on the balance scale

Moreover if the attraction acted on [m] or [mg] an increase in [m]

would cause an increased attraction. Where in fact when we increase

[m] our weight [mg] increases and we hold the planet attractor Force

[F] conveniently equivalent to the increase we feel. Where the equal

and opposite condition is maintained by the increase in the number of

atoms comprising the mass and our additional applied effort on the

resistance.

To rephrase the question: Can we proportionally generalize mass (as a

conserved resistive amount of matter measured at the terrestrial or

planet and moon surface classical frame), to the celestial (moon to

planet, planet to sun) frame, merely based on least action consistent,

planet surface object, distance and time units, where planet surface

object mass [m] is significant with respect to a resistance [mg] we as

planet surface objects feel, but is nonetheless independent with

respect to the celestial frame. Mass [m] does not change [g] changes.

If the planet were alive the Force it could feel would be the Force

exerted by the smaller object. Just like a baseball flying through

the air will strike your head with a Force [ma]. So too will a

falling baseball strike your head with a Force [mg].

I don’t want to abandon but to expand on, the tools and concepts we

use in our physical science. The functional celestial vector is a

consequence of [1] the least action consistent stable universe motion,

and [2] the independence of planet surface object mass with respect to

that motion, and [3] the least action consistent mathematics.

The planet and moon surface object conserved "mass in motion" vector

is also a consequence of the least action consistent celestial motion

because the planet attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. In either

case, the celestial or the planet surface object case, planet surface

object mass is independent with respect to the planet and celestial

attractor action. Since we are planet surface objects our mass is

independent with respect to the planet and celestial attractor

action. The planet attractor is not acting on our mass. . We do not

work against the resistance of the planet [Mg]. We work against the

attraction of the planet. That attraction is super electromagnetic

acting on all atoms uniformly.

However, Planet surface object mass [m] is not independent with

respect to a Force [F] that we, as living planet surface objects apply

and can measure and feel. We can quantitatively define the resistance

we act on as equal and opposite to a Force we feel [F = mg]. This

works well because we are planet surface objects and mass [m] is

emergent in the planet attractor field that acts uniformly on all

atoms. Our applied effort [F] can be quantized against the conserved

resistance [m] we feel at any location in space as [mg]..

Again, in a least action consistent stable universe, where planet

surface object mass [m] is independent of the celestial frame, can we

proportionally generalize planet surface object mass [m] to celestial,

planet, moon and star masses [M], based solely on common cross frame

least action characteristics of their respective motions? Is this

justified beyond its subjective and pragmatic functionality? The

question appears to rest on whether or not it can be shown that the

balance scale compares the resistance of atoms in units of mass [m],

which we interpret in terms of Force [F] as weight [mg].

A thought experiment:

Consider a pure, one isotope 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

represented quantitatively as the product [mg] at location [g]. The

quantity [g] represents an acceleration that is dependent on a

distance from centers of various densities.

In this thought experiment, we observe that the balance scale compares

the resistance of a quantity of atoms to the resistance of a quantity

of matter calibrated in mass units. Given that the thought experiment

is valid, it seems clear that we feel (work against) at location [g],

the cumulative resistance (mass [m]) of the number of atoms in the

pure object pan at that location. The number of atoms, like the mass,

is a function of density. This density has historically been seen as a

function of gravitational Force [F], the Force we apply and

(supposedly) work against.

I have shown that mass [m] represents the cumulative resistance of

planet surface atoms, as measured on the balance scale. Planet and

moon surface object mass [m] represents the conserved cumulative

resistance of uniformly acted upon atoms. We define this resistance in

mass units. The action of the balance scale, on balance, speaks to the

uniform attractive action on the contents of each pan. The balance

scale does not tell us what kind of attractive action is acting on the

pan. We can look at it subjectively as though it is a uniform

attraction on mass [m] (as Newton did with gravity), or a uniform

attraction on atoms (where Newton did not require any greater

distinction than mass [m]). In either view, mass units are conserved.

Question: What is it about mass [m] that allows this?

Answer: The planet attractor acts on all atoms uniformly. Mass [m] is

the unit of measure of the conserved, emergent, cumulative resistance

of a number of atoms.

The uniform attraction on atoms creates a field that is equivalent to

an unencumbered field with respect to mass [m]. Each atom in the pure

object pan is uniformly acted upon by the planet attractor. If each

atom was not acted upon uniformly by the planet attractor, regardless

of the atom's mass, we would not be able to acquire a balance of mass

[m] using the balance scale. Nor could we isolate mass [m] in impact

collisions. All we could acquire is a balance of weight [w], in the

event we could even exist.

All we need do is duplicate the time space parameters to place any of

our planet and moon surface objects into semi-permanent orbits. The

Force [F] we apply to do this is on the cumulative resistance of the

atoms [m] composing the object, at any location in space [g] . Setting

the conserved and emergent cumulative resistance [m] of an orbiting

say, baseball's atoms, equal and opposite to the cumulative resistance

[M] of the atoms composing say, the planet Earth, is an erroneous and

occult, but functional indulgence, arising from the successful

prediction of "least action" time and space parameters in conjunction

with the fact that planet surface object mass [m] is independent of

the celestial frame.

This provides us erroneous validation for the faulty premise put

forward by Isaac Newton that: "Since it is true (the proportional

conservation of planet surface object mass [m]) for all matter we can

measure, it is true for all matter whatsoever." Paraphrased. With

circumspect thought this is simply not warranted.

I conclude that the celestial order we observe is not a universal

consequence of conserved planet and moon surface object mass [m]

resistance (what we as planet and moon surface living inertial

objects, apply, measure and feel as Force [F]).

I also conclude that black holes are a non-existent fantasy based on

our present subjective, quantitative but intellectually primitive

gravitational beliefs. The supposed fact that we have "discovered"

black holes in distant space notwithstanding. Rather, we see what we

expect to see.

The less we know for certain, the more we seem to think we know, and

as a result of obscure observations, the more we try to extend our

infirm knowledge to the rest of the universe, in the likeness of

ourselves. The fact that we begin and end causes us to assume that all

things begin and end. The rarest of supporting observations provide us

"evidentiary proof" for our subjective notions. Which notions insure

that we continue in our intellectually restricted theoretical mode.

Consequently I engaged in an extended search for a way to show that

the planet attractor acted on atoms and not on mass [m]. After some

12-15 years of unsupported and discouraged research on this, I had

come to the tentative conclusion that we cannot tell the difference,

so either approach is functional. Clearly a sad place to leave it

after all the time invested.

Then one day the connection between Avogadro, the balance scale and

the periodic table reminded me that I can determine a specific number

of atoms if I have the mass of a pure element. So there is a direct

conversion for planet surface object mass as resistance, to planet

surface object mass as a number of atoms.

Therefore, I say, that in the case of pure compounds or elements

[F=mg] can be written as [F=nNmg], where [n] represents the number of

moles, [N] represents Avogadro’s number, and [mg] represents the

relative atomic weight of a single atom of the element.

In so far as the above is correct, then on any planet or moon surface,

the force we feel, apply and measure [F], can be set precisely

equivalent (pretty near) in objective terms, to a “number” of element

specific atoms, again, provided we are weighing pure compounds or

elements.

A number of element specific atoms represent an “amount of matter” in

a more objective conceptual (and precisely quantitative) manner, than

our planet and moon surface object, quantitative but "subjective", and

therefore "centrist" notion of “resistance”, as "an amount of

matter" [m].

Although in cases other than pure elements or compounds, the mass of

the object alone will not provide us a means to calculate the number

of atoms in the object, the principle itself should generalize to all

experimental physical analysis of samples of planet and moon surface

matter. A prediction.

It follows then that since conserved planet and moon surface object

mass can be set equivalent to the quantitative measure of the

cumulative resistance of a planet surface, inertial object's atoms

(that we measure and feel), and since we are living planet surface

inertial objects, then what we measure and feel and call gravitational

force, is the accelerated, conserved, cumulative resistance of a

planet (or moon) surface inertial object's atoms. This includes the

atoms that make up our bodies and the atoms in the bowling ball (etc.)

that we lift.

Our notion that a universal force (that we quantitatively measure in

conserved, planet surface object mass units in motion, that we as

living planet surface inertial objects initiate, apply, and/or, feel)

is acting on conserved planet and moon surface mass, is subjectively

functional (mass is not independent of the force that we feel) but

nonetheless false. We initiate, apply and feel "the so called

gravitational force". The attraction is on atoms.

Therefore I submit that what we call gravity is a super form of

electro magnetism that acts on all atoms, not just those “special

case” atoms that are internally and externally optimally alligned.

Endnote

[1] Where mass is the conserved cumulative resistance of planet and

moon surface object atoms and is conserved independently of the

celestial least action motion. Recall that we have spin angular

momentum and linear momentum from Newton’s first law. We don’t have

orbital angular momentum from that law. We acquire orbital angular

momentum from Newton’s mathematical derivation for centripetal force

where he used a perfect circle and perfect motion to argue for

centripetal acceleration.

The spinning perfect circle angular velocity is an artifact of the

uniformly spinning circle itself. The angular velocity of a spinning

disk, sphere, or solid object, is an artifact of the uniformly

spinning disk, sphere, or solid. So we have least action consistent

single object spin angular momentum in fact, and as an artifact of the

spinning perfect circle angular velocity.

Newton then used the least action consistent angular velocity of

Kepler’s empirical time controlled law of areas for 2 body planet

orbital motion, to mathematically carry his perfectly circular 2 body

uniform motion, spin angular momentum analog, to the planet’s non-

uniform 2 body orbital motion.

It’s based on time-space parameters where the emergent conserved

independent cumulative resistance of planet and moon surface atoms is

either designated as the cause of the least action consistent

celestial motion (Newton’s gravity), or as the consequence of the

least action consistent motion, as space-time curvature (Albert

Einstein and peers). This where planet surface object mass is

independent of the celestial frame.

[2] Historically the idea for the conservation of mass included its

mathematical invariance within its operation in the classical frame

and the attendant notion that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

So mass and matter were initially held as nearly synonymous in meaning

due to the fogginess surrounding the connecting thread. The balance

scale was and still is thought to represent a measure of gravitational

Force [F], or weight [mg].

johnreed

I have made it easier to reference my supporting work by creating a

Google Science and Technology Group titled: "The Least Action

Consistent Universe and the Mathematics". Currently it contains

Sections 1 through 9. The many sub-sections and work prior to 2007 has

not been included. I will develop it further as I have time and gain

familiarity with the venue.

Meanwhile it is available for public review to all, and open to

criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. No

restrictions or requirements to join.

Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed