If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

 » Misc The New Gravity intro
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

## The New Gravity intro

#1
October 27th 11, 04:00 AM posted to alt.astronomy
 thejohnlreed external usenet poster Posts: 17
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.
johnreed
#2
October 27th 11, 05:12 AM posted to alt.astronomy
 [email protected] external usenet poster Posts: 15,262
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.
johnreed

#3
October 27th 11, 06:52 AM posted to alt.astronomy
 thejohnlreed external usenet poster Posts: 17
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.
johnreed

Thanks for the compliment.
johnreed
#4
October 27th 11, 01:02 PM posted to alt.astronomy
 G=EMC^2[_2_] external usenet poster Posts: 2,655
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.
johnreed

Thanks for the compliment.
johnreed

Strength of gravity determins rate of acceleration. On moon its 6
times slower than on Earth TreBert
#5
October 27th 11, 04:48 PM posted to alt.astronomy
 [email protected] external usenet poster Posts: 15,262
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
November 3rd 11, 09:23 PM posted to alt.astronomy
 thejohnlreed external usenet poster Posts: 17
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.
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].

johnreed
#7
November 3rd 11, 09:32 PM posted to alt.astronomy
 thejohnlreed external usenet poster Posts: 17
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
November 3rd 11, 11:15 PM posted to alt.astronomy
 [email protected] external usenet poster Posts: 15,262
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
November 4th 11, 05:38 AM posted to alt.astronomy
 thejohnlreed external usenet poster Posts: 17
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 Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 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

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:58 AM.