johnreed take 26 - An Astonishing Fact?

johnreed take 26 - An Astonishing Fact?
December 27, 2008

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 quote
Albert Einstein
..
Why did Einstein, and most of present day physicists, consider this
equivalence astonishing? Why do they consider inert mass and
gravitational mass as "radically different definitions"? Where all
that is required is an explanation of why so called "gravitational"
mass is equivalent to inert mass. To do this requires a more precise
use of words. For example, we think that we feel an attraction to the
Earth. What we actually feel when we are on the Earth's surface is the
"cumulative resistance of our atoms" as they each are pulled toward
the Earth. . We feel nothing but air resistance during free fall. Our
"feel" of the "cumulative resistence of our atoms", in response to the
Earth attractor, has been regarded, 'a priori', as the fundamental
cause of our attraction to Earth for as long as the recorded history
of thinking. Our "feel" of resistance generates the ideas of "up and
down", "Heaven and Hell", "a flat world", and even the "Earth as the
center of the universe". It is the basis for Newton's universe and
Einstein's universe. The idea of "up and down", through the idea of "a
curved space time", originates from the same 'a priori' notion. The
subjective notion that what we feel (the cumulative resistance of our
atoms), is fundamental, augmented by the idea that our quantitative
description for what we feel can be proportionally generalized to the
planets and stars through Kepler's (least action) law of areas[1].

The cumulative resistance of (our) atoms, has been defined as inert
mass. In the case of our attraction to the Earth (which we do not
feel), we have labeled the resistance that we do feel as
"gravitational mass", rather than just a special case of inerl mass
(the cumulative resistance of an object's atoms). Where in both the
gravitational and the inert mass cases, we feel the cumulative
resistance of (our) atoms. We think that the cumulative resistance of
atoms that we feel, causes that cumulative resistance. Where the
cumulative resistance of our atoms that we feel, is completely
contained within the four corners of our body. Since our so called
"gravitational" mass is the cumulative resistence of our atoms (what
we feel), and since all atoms fall at the same rate regardless of
their mass it should be clear that the Earth attractor acts on atoms
and not on the cumulative resistance of the atoms. It should also be
clear that the cumulative resistance of atoms is not an attraction.

The fact that the cumulative resistance of atoms is conserved in all
the objects we can measure allows us to generalize this resistance to
all the objects in the universe. This was Newton's position. "Since it
is true for all the matter we can measure, it is true for all matter
whatsoever." paraphrased. With that assumptive generalization for a
universal notion of force, we invent "gravitational" mass. The reason
they are equivalent is because they are each the cumulative resistance
of an object's atoms. Note that the cumulative resistance of atoms is
the force we feel. Our feel of the cumulative resistance of out atoms
does not transfer to a universal attractive force generated by the
cumulative resistance of atoms. Here is the equivalence in words:
:
1) [inert mass = the cumulative resistance of an object's atoms =
gravitational mass (what we feel)]

What is astonishing about this equivalence? How are the definitions
radically different?

Endnotes
[1] Newton defined centripetal force in terms of his second and third
law by setting his first law object on a circular trajectory at a
uniform motion. Here the law of areas together with its (unrecognized)
controlling time function, falls out as a "joined" artifact of the
efficient area enclosing circle itself. He then connected the
(unrecognized) efficient time artifact of the uniform circle motion,
to Kepler's efficient, time (unrecognized) controlled, law of areas.
Newton generalized Kepler's law of areas to the entire universe, as
the physical mathematical carrier for his (non-time controlled)
centripetal force. Applying his force to gravity, he assigned the
resistance he worked against at the Earth's surface (inert mass), and
called "gravity", as the 'a priori' (non-time controlled) cause of his
centripetal force. In other words, because mass is a conserved
quantity within a least action universe' and because we have defined
the cumulative resistance of objects as a force we feel, we have
assigned the cumulative resistance of objects as the cause of the
observed order in the universe.
johnreed