johnreed take 26 Part-4, Modified April 24, 2009

johnreed take 26 Part-4, Modified April 24, 2009

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

Rhetorical Questions:
Why did Einstein, and why do most contemporary physicists, consider
this equivalence astonishing? Why do they consider inert mass and
gravitational mass, as "radically different definitions"? Why has the
equivalence been invoked as an unexplained principle? Where all that
is required is an explanation in words, for why "gravitational" mass,
is equivalent to inert mass.

Answer to Rhetorical Questions:
The reason is: To rationally explain the equivalence requires a
precise use of words, which requires in turn, more energy intensive
thought, than we have been willing to invest. We have been content to
rely on the convenient "least action" consistent mathematics. Its
quantitative effectiveness in a "least action" universe, provides us a
pragmatic capability, far beyond an immediate necessity for the
rational comprehension of what it means. Indeed, to my knowledge,
other than my work [1], no one has addressed the question of why the
mathematics describes the universe so well, being content instead, to
use the effective "least action" consistent mathematics, and leave the
question unanswered. Consequently, humanity believes that the
mathematics is a "crystal ball" that "mysteriously" reveals the
secrets of the (least action) universe.

As a result, the theoretical physicist mathematician professes a great
disdain for words. The academic humanist, who thinks in words, has
assumed a defacto, lowered intellectual status or academic caste, and
accepts the theoretical physicist's verbal fantasy "word"
interpretations for the mathematical models, with an intimidated
silence. The academic humanist is tolerated and forgiven, and the
theoretical physicist mathematician is considered a specially gifted,
authoritative genius. A comparative position many physicist
mathematicians have come to accept as deserved.

The application of the "least action" consistent mathematics, to our
"least action" universe, allows the physicist mathematician's
imprecise use of words, to provide a quantitative illusion for a
precise conceptual understanding, that is however, only "attributed"
to the theoretical physicist mathematician. His/her disdain for words
can be appreciated when one is introduced to the bizarre fantasy ideas
generated by the nonetheless quantitatively effective, least action
mathematical models. To see this, we need not review in this post, the
more esoteric and incomprehensible notions spawned from the least
action dependent, general relativity, and the least action dependent,
quantum mechanics. We can understand why the so called gravitational
mass is equivalent to inert mass by requiring a higher standard of
precision for our word definitions. For example: The reason the
increased inertia exactly matches the "so called" gravitational force
is: "Inertia" and "force" are each properties of the universe that we
"feel".

We can leave it at that as Isaac Newton did, just as though what we
feel and call gravitational force is fundamental, because inert mass
(resistance) is conserved locally (with respect to surface planet
objects) in the least action universe. Consequently we presumptively
assign the conservation of surface planet, inert object mass
(resistance), to the celestial least action universe, where its (inert
mass) anonymous operation, and Kepler's least action, law of areas,
allows us to define the celestial least action universe in units that
are proportional to what we feel(resistance)[2],[5]. From here we
carry the assumption that our feel of force (as living inertial
objects) quantified in units of accelerated inert mass, is the cause
of the least action order that we observe in the celestial least
action universe [3],[5].

We can carry this further as Albert Einstein did, again, just as
though what we feel (as living planet surface, inertial objects), is
fundamental, by declaring that inert mass and so called gravitational
mass are the same, as a matter of convenient, but unexplained
principle. Where gravity (the imprecise and erroneous, overly
generalized definition of what we feel, as living, planet surface
inertial objects), is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime, in
a least action universe, which spacetime least action curvature, is
nonetheless, a consequence of inert mass (what we feel, as living,
planet surface inertial objects, quantitatively measured in units of
resistance). Either approach assumes that our feel of force, as living
planet surface inertial objects, quantified in units of accelerated
inert mass (resistance), is the cause of the least action order that
we observe in the celestial least action universe.

Or, we can avail ourselves of the increased knowledge we have gained
in the last 350 years, and precisely define the physical cause of what
we "feel". Recall that "Inertia" and "force" are each properties of
the universe that we "feel". To answer the question then _requires_
that we define precisely what it is that we feel.

oOo

I say:
If mass is the quantitative measure of the conserved cumulative
resistance of a planet surface, inertial object's atoms (that we
feel), and if we are living, planet surface inertial objects: Then
what we feel as gravitational force is the accelerated, conserved
cumulative resistance of a planet surface inertial object's atoms.
This includes the atoms that make up our bodies and the atoms in the
bowling ball that we lift. This defines inert mass in hard objective
terms of what we feel, and compare and measure on the balance scale,
and call weight. The comparative cumulative resistance of an inertial
object's atoms. It explains why Newton's third law works with respect
to the conserved interaction between planet surface inertial objects,
in units of resistance called inert mass.

Where the cumulative resistance of ANY inertial object's atoms (like
some planets, some moons, and stars) may, or may not be, more or less
than the sum of a theoretical composition of discrete atoms. In fact
the state of matter at the cores of stars and some planets and moons,
may not be the same state of matter we find at the planet surface [4],
[5].
However, in the case of objects composed of pure elements, where each
and every atom is directly proportional to a single, common, inert
mass, the total mass magnitude of the object, provides us a straight
forward means to calculate the number of atoms within the object[6].
This is also true for the molecules of objects of pure compounds.
Either of these cases show that the "inert mass" of the surface planet
object "pretty near" represents the cumulative resistance of that
object's atoms. This, a fundamental aspect of the science of
chemistry.
Inert mass represents the "magnitude of the intrinsic cumulative
atomic resistance" that we feel (as living, planet surface inertial
objects), but it does not tell us the "physical cause of" what we feel
[7]. Rather, we have presumptively assumed, that the least action
order that we observe in the universe, is "caused by" what we feel.

The cumulative resistance of atoms assimilates the quantity "energy"
and many other properties of planet surface matter including many that
may be heretofore undefined. The cumulative resistance of planet
surface atoms is measured in units of inert mass. We have further
generalized inert mass, to describe the internal atomic
electromagnetic properties of frequency and wavelength, in terms of
energy, through the conversion factor called Planck's Constant.

Where we are attracted to the Earth and where we feel and measure the
cumulative resistance of our planet surface atoms in units of inert
mass, and the cumulative resistance of a planet surface inertial
object's atoms that we lift, in units of inert mass, does not show
that an equal and opposite attractive force exists between our inert
mass (the cumulative resistance of atoms) and the Earth's inert mass
(the theoretical cumulative resistance of atoms). Since this
resistance does not occur when we travel in the direction our atoms
are being pulled during free fall, we must wait to impact the Earth to
experience that resistance from acceleration. Where the final velocity
is zero. The idea that an increase in planet surface object inertial
mass (resistance) precisely equals the so called gravitational mass
(resistance) where no resistance exists during free fall, is "literal"
nonsense. On the other hand we feel the resistance continually at the
Earth’s surface where vertical velocity is zero. This resistance is
immediately increased as we accelerate against the direction of the
pull on our atoms.

This shows that the force "we apply" to lift the planet surface
object, precisely matches the cumulative resistance of the planet
surface object's atoms, that we lift. Inertia is the cumulative
resistance of an inertial object's atoms. Therefore, with respect to
Newton's third law, equal and opposite is defined in units that
represent the "magnitude of the accelerated resistance" of an inertial
object’s atoms, that we feel. Where the cumulative resistance of our
atoms, or the atoms of the object that we lift, can in no objective
(as opposed to subjective) way, be set equivalent to the theoretical
cumulative resistance of the atoms composing the Earth. We ask too
much from acceleration. Additionally, we are a part of the Earth's
surface, and we do not know what state of matter exists at the core of
the Earth [4],[5].

oOo

Afterword: Consider a "pulling" force that acts on atoms individually,
or in cases parts of atoms. Such a force does not act on resistance.
More generally, if it did act on resistance the more resistance we
applied as physical effort, the more resistance we would have to
overcome. The resistance we detect comes from the cumulative
resistance of the object's atoms at the Earth's surface, where the
pulling force acts on the object's atoms individually, and which we
must overcome collectively to lift the object. The pulling force acts
on the object's atoms individually where the force we apply acts on
the cumulative resistance of the object's atoms. Here we feel the
"accelerated" (therefore increased) cumulative resistance of an
inertial object's atoms. The measure is taken as the cumulative
resistance of the object's atoms at an instantaneous or final
velocity.

Note that where the Earth attractor acts on atoms individually, and
not collectively on bodies (as we do, and as impacting inertial
objects do), then all atoms falling at the same rate explains the
measured equivalence cogently. The subjective principle of equivalence
is mathematically functional, with respect to our effort as surface
planet inertial objects, but conceptually incorrect. And where the
Earth attractor acts on atoms it should be investigatively
advantageous to examine the possibility for a form of "super"
electromagnetism that acts on all atoms, not just those atoms with
optimal structural characteristics and properties [4]. This "super"
form of electromagnetism will replace our "super" so called
gravitationally caused blackhole, and provide a rational theoretical
framework for pulsars and quasars and whatever else is yet to be
discovered out there. The so called universal force of gravity,
singularities, and many other mathematical fantasies will no longer be
viable.

oOo

It took me many years to figure this "little bit" out. Too many. It
took many more years to articulate it. This is still ongoing. It will
not meet with your expectations from scripture. If you consider your
expectations from scripture as proved science, and if you think my
little bit is inconsistent with that scripture, or otherwise incorrect
from a rational perspective, please be my guest and try to blow it out
of the water. As I have indicated before, I will appreciate your
success if it occurs. However, if you cannot do this, without a sole
reference and reliance on science that is based solely on Physics 101
scripture, do your progeny a favor. Be one of the first to recognize
the veracity of my little bit, or remain silent.

Endnotes
[1] See "johnreed take 26 - The Principle of Equivalence - Part 1" and
Part 2 and 3. Search Google.groups on "johnreed take" to access most
of the rest of it. To acquire an attempt to account for the history of
the logical development of these ideas see "johnreed take 1A, 13 OCT
2005; johnreed take 1B, 12 NOV 2005; johnreed take 1C, 22 DEC 2005;
johnreed take 1D, 23 FEB 2006.
[2],[3],[6] See "Is Mass an Emergent Quantity in an Electromagnetic
Universe?" "...Research Results on Centripetal Force, Part 2".
[4] See "johnreed take 23" 24 and 25.
[5] In the case of stable, least action orbital motion, the inertial
resistance of the planet and the planet's momentum, are secondary to
the time controlled least action orbit (where the orbital acceleration
and "free fall" acceleration meets that time function), as are these
properties with respect to our artificial satellites, once they are
placed in orbit. Our so called universal "orbit controlling
gravitational force" (while controlling us) conveniently (anonymously)
operates within the time constraints of Kepler's law of areas. Where
we have mathematically converted angular velocity [v^2/r], to angular
momentum [mv^2/r], by multiplying both sides of a least action
equation by unity in the convenient anonymous form of [m/m] [6]. In
short we have defined the least action universe after our own planet
surface inertial object image. It is functional for us, as planet
surface inertial objects, but subjective and conceptually
limiting. [6]
Here [F=mg] can be written as [F=nNmg], where [n] represents the
number of moles, [N] represents Avagadro's number, and [m] represents
the atomic weight of a single atom of the element.
[7] A shovel full of dirt will weigh a specific magnitude. We cannot
determine the composition of the dirt from its mass alone. We can
however, determine its mass if we have its precise composition.
johnreed