Is Mass an Emergent Quantity in an Electro Magnetic Universe? Part4c.1

Is Mass an Emergent quantity in an Electro Magnetic Universe?
Research Results on Centripetal Force, Part 2
Math and Universe, Part 4, November 13, 2007
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Part 4c.1

In Part 4b I noted that outside a perfect circle and uniform motion,
the "equable description of areas indicates" more than just a center
"respected by that force". Kepler's law shows that a time function
accompanies the force. Where is the time function in Newton's perfect
circle and uniform motion derivation for centripetal force in The
Principia? There the law of areas is an artifact of the perfect circle
in uniform motion.

Consider the mathematics for gravity, a subjective force we feel and
attribute to the universe in units of mass [m] as controlling:

1) F=GMm/r^2

Where is the time function in Newton's universal law of gravitation
1)? It has to be in [G] a measure solely dependent on the comparison
of local mass magnitudes. Newton defined a universal gravitational
force between two objects as a function of the product of their mass,
where the function is attenuated by the inverse of the square of the
distance between the mass centers. The centers of mass of the moving
objects describe the least action trajectory of those objects. I note
that [1/r^2] is a quantitative, general least action property
consistent with the surface area of a sphere. I also note that the
mass density of the objects is a shared variable, ultimately
proportionally dependent on the measured or calculated mass of a local
planet surface inert object and the inverse of the square of the
distance [1/r^2] between the objects, and that the scale is directly
set not only by the local measure and quantification of (our
subjective) inert mass [m], but also by the local so called constant
of proportionality [G], originally measured as a function of torque
(Cavendish) between suspended local planet surface inert mass [m]
objects (On [G] see the paper by Andre Michaud at:
http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud1.pdf).

Inert mass is conserved in our local planet surface least action
consistent universe and operates anonymously (independently) within
the least action consistent planet attractor mathematics. Therefore
inert mass cannot be proportionally applied to the celestial
mathematics. Inert mass works nicely here as a property of resistance
we work against. No matter the magnitude of the planet or moon surface
massive object, we always work solely against the mass of the local
object.

Equal and opposite applies solely to the effort we expend (and call
force) against the resistance of the object we interact with. This
includes impacting surface planet objects and the comparative measure
of those objects on the balance scale. We can show that we work
against a resistance. We can call that resistance inert mass. We
cannot distinguish between matter and mass here. That is: is it the
matter resistance that is conserved, or the mass of the matter that is
conserved? Mass is only a measure of resistance. Therefore it is the
resistance of matter that is conserved. Matter is composed of atoms.

We cannot show that inert mass is acted upon by the Earth Attractor.
We can show that our subjective notion of force can be quantitatively
reduced to [F=nNmg] (see my most recent prior post) where n is the
number of moles, N is Avogadro’s number, and [mg] is the relative
atomic weight of a single atom of the element. Therefore what we feel
and call gravitational force is in fact the conserved cumulative
resistance of atoms. The Earth Attractor acts on atoms. Newton’s great
synthesis for a mass generated attraction, relies solely on the
similarity between least action consistent local and celestial, stable
universe objects in motion. Similarity is not congruence.

Consider the mathematics:

2) F=4pi^2mr/T^2

The right side of 2) reflects the efficient least action properties of
perfect circle and perfect motion orbits, where planet surface object
inert mass has been included arbitrarily by using the mathematical
technique of multiplying both sides of a least action equation by
unity (in this case [m/m]: this operation is not shown here but
accessible in most introductory physics texts). Then the introductory
text will set 1) equal to 2) as:

3) GMm/r^2=4pi^2mr/T^2

Where on rearranging and simplifying we have:

4) T^2/r^3=4pi^2/GM

The introductory physics text will now argue that 4) shows that
Kepler’s third law [K = T^2/r^3] is “merely a result” of Newton’s
gravitational law, and “... although this derivation uses perfect
motion and perfect orbits, it applies equally well to real orbits in
real motion provided we use the average distance from the sun to the
planet for [r].” (Paraphrased)

The introductory physics text states that the derivation here uses
perfect circles in perfect motion (where we have the efficiency
quotient as either [circumference/area] or [the period/area]). And
then it states that the derivation applies to real orbits as well,
provided we use the average distance from the sun to the planet for
[r]. So that the efficiency quotient in the real orbit case is:
Circumference to Area [2pir/pir^2] or the Period to Area [T/pir^2].
Clearly, nothing has changed mathematically. They each reduce to the
efficiency quotients [2/r] or [2/rv]. Where the time function [T] is
obscured and remains joined to, and, a mere artifact of, the perfect
circle in uniform motion. Where Kepler’s third law is a sole
consequence of a time controlled least action consistent stable
universe, and refers only to that.

In 2) we have the perfect orbit and perfect motion where we allow our
local quantity for resistance inert mass [m], a free ride. Then we
use 3) and 4) to eliminate inert mass [m] from the derivation while
including the local inert mass [m], empirical “scaling” measurement
[G], to proportionalize the least action (efficient) measurements that
represent the least action orbits, to proportionally define the
magnitude of mass for the celestial least action orbiting object [M].
In other words, we arbitrarily assign as a proportionally controlling
property of the celestial body least action orbits, the quantity [G]
measured locally as a function of a quantity that is independent of
the planet attractor mathematics, inert mass [m]. We call [G] a
constant of proportionality and wonder why we are missing what we call
dark matter and dark energy.

oOo

Since inert mass is an influential quantity in our planet surface
object mathematics, but is an independent quantity with respect to the
planet attractor mathematics, how is it we measure [G] as a function
of planet surface object inert mass, and assign it as a constant of
proportionality for an inert mass, that applies to all celestial
bodies? We are defining the least action celestial universal order,
after our own local, conserved, least action consistent, planet
surface, inert mass image. The planets do qualify as celestial
bodies. If inert mass is independent of the Earth attractor action
here, it is a reasonable generalization to conclude that inert mass is
independent of the action of all celestial attractive planets and
moons.

johnreed, modified Monday, February 01, 2010

On Feb 1, 11:24*pm, thejohnlreed wrote:
Is Mass an Emergent quantity in an Electro Magnetic Universe?
Research Results on Centripetal Force, Part 2
Math and Universe, Part 4, November 13, 2007
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Part 4c.1

In Part 4b I noted that outside a perfect circle and uniform motion,
the "equable description of areas indicates" more than just a center
"respected by that force". *Kepler's law shows that a time function
accompanies the force. Where is the time function in Newton's perfect
circle and uniform motion derivation for centripetal force in The
Principia? There the law of areas is an artifact of the perfect circle
in uniform motion.

Consider the mathematics for gravity, a subjective force we feel and
attribute to the universe in units of mass [m] as controlling:

1) *F=GMm/r^2

Where is the time function in Newton's universal law of gravitation
1)? *It has to be in [G] a measure solely dependent on the comparison
of local mass magnitudes. Newton defined a universal gravitational
force between two objects as a function of the product of their mass,
where the function is attenuated by the inverse of the square of the
distance between the mass centers. The centers of mass of the moving
objects describe the least action trajectory of those objects. I note
that [1/r^2] is a quantitative, general least action property
consistent with the surface area of a sphere. *I also note that the
mass density of the objects is a shared variable, ultimately
proportionally dependent on the measured or calculated mass of a local
planet surface inert object and the *inverse of the square of the
distance [1/r^2] between the objects, and that the scale is directly
set not only by the local measure and quantification of (our
subjective) inert mass [m], but also by the local so called constant
of proportionality [G], originally measured as a function of torque
(Cavendish) between suspended local planet surface inert mass [m]
objects (On [G] see the paper by Andre Michaud at:http://www.wbabin.net/science/michaud1.pdf).

Inert mass is conserved in our local planet surface least action
consistent universe and operates anonymously (independently) within
the least action consistent planet attractor mathematics. Therefore
inert mass cannot be proportionally applied to the celestial
mathematics. *Inert mass works nicely here as a property of resistance
we work against. No matter the magnitude of the planet or moon surface
massive object, we always work solely against the mass of the local
object.

Equal and opposite applies solely to the effort we expend (and call
force) against the resistance of the object we interact with. This
includes impacting surface planet objects and the comparative measure
of those objects on the balance scale. We can show that we work
against a resistance. We can call that resistance inert mass. We
cannot distinguish between matter and mass here. That is: is it the
matter resistance that is conserved, or the mass of the matter that is
conserved? Mass is only a measure of resistance. Therefore it is the
resistance of matter that is conserved. Matter is composed of atoms.

We cannot show that inert mass is acted upon by the Earth Attractor.
We can show that our subjective notion of force can be quantitatively
reduced to [F=nNmg] (see my most recent prior post) where n is the
number of moles, N is Avogadro’s number, and [mg] is the relative
atomic weight of a single atom of the element. *Therefore what we feel
and call gravitational force is in fact the conserved cumulative
resistance of atoms. The Earth Attractor acts on atoms. Newton’s great
synthesis for a mass generated attraction, relies solely on the
similarity between least action consistent local and celestial, stable
universe *objects in motion. Similarity is not congruence.

Consider the mathematics:

2) *F=4pi^2mr/T^2

The right side of 2) reflects the efficient least action properties of
perfect circle and perfect motion orbits, where planet surface object
inert mass has been included arbitrarily by using the mathematical
technique of multiplying both sides of a least action equation by
unity (in this case [m/m]: this operation is not shown here but
accessible in most introductory physics texts). Then the introductory
text will set 1) equal to 2) as:

3) *GMm/r^2=4pi^2mr/T^2

Where on rearranging and simplifying we have:

4) *T^2/r^3=4pi^2/GM

The introductory physics text will now argue that 4) shows that
Kepler’s third law [K = T^2/r^3] is “merely a result” of Newton’s
gravitational law, and “... although this derivation uses perfect
motion and perfect orbits, it applies equally well to real orbits in
real motion provided we use the average distance from the sun to the
planet for [r].” (Paraphrased)

The introductory physics text states that the derivation here uses
perfect circles in perfect motion (where we have the efficiency
quotient as either [circumference/area] or [the period/area]). *And
then it states that the derivation applies to real orbits as well,
provided we use the average distance from the sun to the planet for
[r]. *So that the efficiency quotient in the real orbit case is:
Circumference to Area [2pir/pir^2] or the Period to Area [T/pir^2].
Clearly, nothing has changed mathematically. *They each reduce to the
efficiency quotients [2/r] or [2/rv]. Where the time function [T] is
obscured and remains joined to, and, *a mere artifact of, the perfect
circle in uniform motion. Where Kepler’s third law is a sole
consequence of a time controlled least action consistent stable
universe, and refers only to that.

In 2) we have the perfect orbit and perfect motion where we allow our
local quantity for resistance inert mass [m], a free ride. *Then we
use 3) and 4) to eliminate inert mass [m] from the derivation while
including the local inert mass [m], empirical “scaling” measurement
[G], to proportionalize the least action (efficient) measurements that
represent the least action orbits, to proportionally define the
magnitude of mass for the celestial least action orbiting object [M].
In other words, we arbitrarily assign as a proportionally controlling
property of the celestial body least action orbits, the quantity [G]
measured locally as a function of a quantity that is independent of
the planet attractor mathematics, inert mass [m]. We call [G] a
constant of proportionality and wonder why we are missing what we call
dark matter and dark energy.

oOo

Since inert mass is an influential quantity in our planet surface
object mathematics, but is an independent quantity with respect to the
planet attractor mathematics, how is it we measure [G] as a function
of planet surface object inert mass, and assign it as a constant of
proportionality for an inert mass, that applies to all celestial
bodies? *We are defining the least action celestial universal order,
after our own local, conserved, least action consistent, planet
surface, inert mass image. The planets do qualify as celestial
bodies. *If inert mass is independent of the Earth attractor action
here, it is a reasonable generalization to conclude that inert mass is
independent of the action of all celestial attractive planets and
moons.

johnreed, modified Monday, February 01, 2010

To ya all EM is just one of the faces of gravity.Best to go with
G=EMC^2 when thinking how universes were constructed. EM can be
blocked. Gravity is the intrinsic force of the cosmos. It goes to
infinity. It can be a push or pull,and that comes out of my
concave&convex theory on space curve. My Spin is in theory + my
curving space theory merging into one theory is my goal. I will post
it when Treb and I complete it TreBert

"bert" wrote in message
...

Hvac Spin is in,and Bud is in.Are you a member of the Tea party


Since I was born in Boston, I am grandfathered into
the Tea Party.

PS- Spin THIS.