|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The New Gravity intro
The Nrw Dravity Intro
johnreed We used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000 years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. So when Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same height we were amazed and we have remained amazed for 450 years. Where we place a balance scale is immaterial to the function of the balance scale (as long as it is placed in a frame within which it can operate). Wherever we place it the magnitude of the acceleration [g] as a factor of the product weight [mg], will be the same on each pan regardless of the mass magnitudes placed on the pans. So when we define an object in units of weight [mg], the only quantity we are comparing on the balance scale is the quantity of mass [m], since acceleration [g] is a consequence of location. This uniform action [g] on each pan enables us to compare non-uniform mass resistance on the balance scale. That's pretty simple isn't it? So you might wonder why I bother to point it out. Since what is called gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence of location (and not a consequence of mass [m] ) all objects MUST fall at the rate of [g]. Further, if [g] was not a consequence of location then mass [m] and acceleration [g] could not be combined into the product called weight [mg]. In such a case the balance scale would only give us weight as [w]. However if that were the case we could never have developed. Nonetheless we have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m] when dropped at the same time from the same height (in a vacuum). 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 for reference. The many sub-sections and work prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as I have the time and gain familiarity with the venue. Meanwhile my more recent work is available for public review to all, and open to criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. The latter is a condition established by Google and newsgroups in general. I provide information. I seek no recruits. However, there are no restrictions or requirements to join. Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed johnreed |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The New Gravity intro
IT HELPS YOU TO BE INSANE, john!
Saul Levy On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:00:10 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: The Nrw Dravity Intro johnreed We used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000 years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. So when Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same height we were amazed and we have remained amazed for 450 years. Where we place a balance scale is immaterial to the function of the balance scale (as long as it is placed in a frame within which it can operate). Wherever we place it the magnitude of the acceleration [g] as a factor of the product weight [mg], will be the same on each pan regardless of the mass magnitudes placed on the pans. So when we define an object in units of weight [mg], the only quantity we are comparing on the balance scale is the quantity of mass [m], since acceleration [g] is a consequence of location. This uniform action [g] on each pan enables us to compare non-uniform mass resistance on the balance scale. That's pretty simple isn't it? So you might wonder why I bother to point it out. Since what is called gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence of location (and not a consequence of mass [m] ) all objects MUST fall at the rate of [g]. Further, if [g] was not a consequence of location then mass [m] and acceleration [g] could not be combined into the product called weight [mg]. In such a case the balance scale would only give us weight as [w]. However if that were the case we could never have developed. Nonetheless we have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m] when dropped at the same time from the same height (in a vacuum). 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 for reference. The many sub-sections and work prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as I have the time and gain familiarity with the venue. Meanwhile my more recent work is available for public review to all, and open to criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. The latter is a condition established by Google and newsgroups in general. I provide information. I seek no recruits. However, there are no restrictions or requirements to join. Current web address: http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed johnreed |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The New Gravity intro
On Oct 26, 9:12*pm, wrote:
IT HELPS YOU TO BE INSANE, john! Saul Levy On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:00:10 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: The Nrw Dravity Intro johnreed We used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000 years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. So when Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same height we were amazed and we have remained amazed for 450 years. Where we place a balance scale is immaterial to the function of the balance scale (as long as it is placed in a frame within which it can operate). Wherever we place it the magnitude of the acceleration [g] as a factor of the product weight [mg], will be the same on each pan regardless of the mass magnitudes placed on the pans. So when we define an object in units of weight [mg], the only quantity we are comparing on the balance scale is the quantity of mass [m], since acceleration [g] is a consequence of location. *This uniform action [g] on each pan enables us to compare non-uniform mass resistance on the balance scale. That's pretty simple isn't it? So you might wonder why I bother to point it out. Since what is called gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence of location (and not a consequence of mass [m] ) all objects MUST fall at the rate of [g]. Further, if [g] was not a consequence of location then mass [m] and acceleration [g] could not be combined into the product called weight [mg]. *In such a case the balance scale would only give us weight as [w]. *However if that were the case we could never have developed. Nonetheless we have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m] when dropped at the same time from the same height (in a vacuum). 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 for reference. The many sub-sections and work prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as I have the time and gain familiarity with the venue. Meanwhile my more recent work is available for public review to all, and open to criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. *The latter is a condition established by Google and newsgroups in general. I provide information. I seek no recruits. *However, there are no restrictions or requirements to join. Current web address:http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed johnreed Thanks for the compliment. johnreed |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The New Gravity intro
On Oct 27, 1:52*am, thejohnlreed wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:12*pm, wrote: IT HELPS YOU TO BE INSANE, john! Saul Levy On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:00:10 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: The Nrw Dravity Intro johnreed We used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000 years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. So when Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same height we were amazed and we have remained amazed for 450 years. Where we place a balance scale is immaterial to the function of the balance scale (as long as it is placed in a frame within which it can operate). Wherever we place it the magnitude of the acceleration [g] as a factor of the product weight [mg], will be the same on each pan regardless of the mass magnitudes placed on the pans. So when we define an object in units of weight [mg], the only quantity we are comparing on the balance scale is the quantity of mass [m], since acceleration [g] is a consequence of location. *This uniform action [g] on each pan enables us to compare non-uniform mass resistance on the balance scale. That's pretty simple isn't it? So you might wonder why I bother to point it out. Since what is called gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence of location (and not a consequence of mass [m] ) all objects MUST fall at the rate of [g]. Further, if [g] was not a consequence of location then mass [m] and acceleration [g] could not be combined into the product called weight [mg]. *In such a case the balance scale would only give us weight as [w]. *However if that were the case we could never have developed. Nonetheless we have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m] when dropped at the same time from the same height (in a vacuum). 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 for reference. The many sub-sections and work prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as I have the time and gain familiarity with the venue. Meanwhile my more recent work is available for public review to all, and open to criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. *The latter is a condition established by Google and newsgroups in general. I provide information. I seek no recruits. *However, there are no restrictions or requirements to join. Current web address:http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed johnreed Thanks for the compliment. johnreed Strength of gravity determins rate of acceleration. On moon its 6 times slower than on Earth TreBert |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The New Gravity intro
YES, YOU SURE ARE INSANE!
HOW'S IT FEEL TO BE INSANE? IDIOT! Saul Levy On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:52:57 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: On Oct 26, 9:12*pm, wrote: IT HELPS YOU TO BE INSANE, john! Saul Levy On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:00:10 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: The Nrw Dravity Intro johnreed We used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000 years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. Thanks for the compliment. johnreed |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The New Gravity intro
On Oct 27, 5:02*am, "G=EMC^2" wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:52*am, thejohnlreed wrote: On Oct 26, 9:12*pm, wrote: IT HELPS YOU TO BE INSANE, john! Saul Levy On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:00:10 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: The Nrw Dravity Intro johnreed We used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000 years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. So when Galileo showed that all objects fall at the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same height we were amazed and we have remained amazed for 450 years. Where we place a balance scale is immaterial to the function of the balance scale (as long as it is placed in a frame within which it can operate). Wherever we place it the magnitude of the acceleration [g] as a factor of the product weight [mg], will be the same on each pan regardless of the mass magnitudes placed on the pans. So when we define an object in units of weight [mg], the only quantity we are comparing on the balance scale is the quantity of mass [m], since acceleration [g] is a consequence of location. *This uniform action [g] on each pan enables us to compare non-uniform mass resistance on the balance scale. That's pretty simple isn't it? So you might wonder why I bother to point it out. Since what is called gravitational acceleration [g] is a consequence of location (and not a consequence of mass [m] ) all objects MUST fall at the rate of [g]. Further, if [g] was not a consequence of location then mass [m] and acceleration [g] could not be combined into the product called weight [mg]. *In such a case the balance scale would only give us weight as [w]. *However if that were the case we could never have developed. Nonetheless we have engaged in extensive research to verify that all objects fall at the same rate, independent of their mass [m] when dropped at the same time from the same height (in a vacuum). 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 for reference. The many sub-sections and work prior to 2007 has not been included. I will develop it further as I have the time and gain familiarity with the venue. Meanwhile my more recent work is available for public review to all, and open to criticism and discussion by any person who joins the group. *The latter is a condition established by Google and newsgroups in general. I provide information. I seek no recruits. *However, there are no restrictions or requirements to join. Current web address:http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed johnreed Thanks for the compliment. johnreed Strength of gravity determins rate of acceleration. On moon its 6 times slower than on Earth * *TreBert jr writes How does that apply to what I wrote? We feel a force that we can quantify as resistancw [mg]. Then we intetject what we feel [F] into the universe by elevating what we feel to what we measure as resistance [mg]. Yes the force we feel is equal and opposite to the resistance we act on. We have defined it that way [F=mg]. How does that make the resistance a force generated by the planet? We generate the force. We can feel the force. The planet uniformly attracts non- uniform atoms. We have one pan of non uniform atoms balanced against another pan of non uniform atoms. [g] acts uniformly on non-uniform atoms. What is the great difficulty here once it is pointed out to you. [g] acts uniformly on non-uniform atoms. Much simpler than trying to make what we feel uniform as gravity. What we feel is heavy or light. That's how objective weight is when defined as [mg]. Thanks or the reply. johnreed |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The New Gravity intro
On Oct 27, 8:48*am, wrote:
YES, YOU SURE ARE INSANE! HOW'S IT FEEL TO BE INSANE? IDIOT! Saul Levy jr writes I wish you were here. On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:52:57 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: On Oct 26, 9:12*pm, wrote: IT HELPS YOU TO BE INSANE, john! Saul Levy On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:00:10 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: The Nrw Dravity Intro johnreed We used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000 years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. Thanks for the compliment. johnreed |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The New Gravity intro
I'M STILL RIGHT HERE, IDIOT!
Saul Levy On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: On Oct 27, 8:48*am, wrote: YES, YOU SURE ARE INSANE! HOW'S IT FEEL TO BE INSANE? IDIOT! Saul Levy jr writes I wish you were here. On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:52:57 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: On Oct 26, 9:12*pm, wrote: IT HELPS YOU TO BE INSANE, john! Saul Levy On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:00:10 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: The Nrw Dravity Intro johnreed We used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000 years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. Thanks for the compliment. johnreed |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The New Gravity intro
On Nov 3, 4:15*pm, wrote:
I'M STILL RIGHT HERE, IDIOT! Saul Levy On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:32:27 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: On Oct 27, 8:48*am, wrote: YES, YOU SURE ARE INSANE! HOW'S IT FEEL TO BE INSANE? IDIOT! Saul Levy jr writes I wish you were here. On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:52:57 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: On Oct 26, 9:12*pm, wrote: IT HELPS YOU TO BE INSANE, john! Saul Levy On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:00:10 -0700 (PDT), thejohnlreed wrote: The Nrw Dravity Intro johnreed We used the balance scale to give us weight for 6000 years and for 6000 years we believed that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. Thanks for the compliment. johnreed jr writesNewton is my main idol So it is with great defernce and respect that I point out the following. Newton's first law gave us linear and single object spin angular momentum. It did not give us two body orbit angular momentum. Newton derived two body orbital angular momentum by applying perfectly circular spin angular momentum to Kepler's law of areas. They are both least action consistent and rely on our measure of comparative mass which with respect to Newton conjectured "If it is true here it is true everywhere". With reference to the proportionality of mass to all "bodies" in the universe. This was in the time of Dante' and Newton was a believer. Newton's third law gave us the equal and opposite idea for force. Since what we lift can be quantified as resistance [mg] and is equal to a force we feel [F] by definition [F=mg]. We can call the force we feel [mg] a force that is generated by the planet. However we are alive and animate and have the propensity to "feel" through our tactile sense. The planet feels nothing I assume. So the planet can be acting uniformly on non-uniform atoms which we exert an effort to lift. The planet uniformly attracts non- uniform atoms. We have one pan of non uniform atoms balanced against another pan of non uniform atoms. [g] acts uniformly on non-uniform atoms. What is the great difficulty here once it is pointed out to you. [g] acts uniformly on non-uniform atoms. This is pretty simple stuff. I don't expect you to grasp it but lurkers will. johnreed |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
intro | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 2nd 07 11:36 AM |
intro help | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 10 | December 2nd 05 01:17 AM |
Intro & Question | Reaper | UK Astronomy | 0 | February 15th 05 08:43 PM |
FITS Intro | Tony | FITS | 2 | April 1st 04 10:24 AM |
Intro to optical design | matt | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | March 10th 04 12:26 AM |