johnreed take 1D

As I continued my analysis of Newtonian gravitation (see Take 1C), I
noted that the idea for a "mass generated" gravitational force is a
consequence of three facts: (1) Our tactile sense of attraction to the
earth. (2) The quantification of this sense, in terms of the product
of mass and the rate of acceleration accompanying the attraction, at
the earth's surface, as weight (mg). (3) Newton's third law that
sets weight (mg) equal and opposite to the action caused by the earth
attractor.

In Take 1B I indicated that any challenge of Newton's third law, as it
applies to (3) and as it applies to celestial objects at a distance, in
general, must also provide a rational explanation for the fact that all
objects fall at the same rate, when dropped at the same time, from the
same height. This is necessary because this property of objects in
freefall is explained as a consequence of Newton's third law. I noted
that even with the third law, the phenomenon has perplexed us* to
varying degrees,** over the years.

Our conceptual difficulty arises from the idea that our tactile sense
of attraction to the earth is generated by "mass", where mass is
not affected by the earth attractor in a manner that is intuitively
consistent with our feel of a mass derived force. For example: we
explain the fact that all objects fall at the same rate, when dropped
at the same time, from the same height, as a consequence of Newton's
third law, in conjunction with the increased resistance we experience,
that accompanies an increase in mass. However, where the increased
resistance that accompanies an increase in mass, "appears" to apply
everywhere else, it clearly does not apply in freefall. We detect no
resistance (excluding atmospheric) during freefall. Hence our
designation, "freefall". We assert this resistance to conceptually
accomodate the equal and opposite equations that describe the
quantitative behavior of inertial objects, with respect to the earth
attractor action, in terms of our tactile sense of attraction to the
earth, (mg).

In Take 1C I put forward several brief, rational arguments, supporting
my conclusion that the earth attractor does not act on mass. As I
continued my analysis I used the descriptive phrase "my feel force" as
a substitute for the word "gravity"***. I considered the freefall
phenomenon properties in terms of "my feel force". I required a
"massless" explanation for gravity that explained my tactile sense
of attraction to the earth as an inertial object, and also explained
why all inertial objects fall at the same rate, when dropped at the
same time, from the same height. I sought a quantity that "is"
acted upon by the earth attractor, in a manner that is consistent with
the experimental data, and intuitively consistent with my "feel of
force". With these considerations in place, and after much subsequent
contemplation, I determined that the earth attractor acts on my
constituent parts, and not on the mass of my constituent parts.

Here, it at first appears that I have made no progress at all. How does
the phrase "constituent parts of matter" differ from the word
"matter", in describing the focus of the earth attractor action?
The difference is in the increased knowledge and perspective we have
acquired during the last 350 years. Where 350 years ago it was useful
to describe matter, solely in terms of mass, today we must precisely
define mass solely in terms of matter, as well. Today we have the
periodic table. Today constituent parts of matter, translate to "atoms"
and their electromagnetic components.

Consider:
(1) Our tactile sense of attraction to the earth:
When we are in contact with the earth, we feel the resistance of the
constituent parts of our body as the sum of the inertial mass of our
atoms, as they each*** are attracted toward the earth by an action on
the atom that we do not otherwise feel. The magnitude of the attractive
action at the earth's surface is measured in terms of acceleration
(g), independent of mass (m). With the balance scale, we measure the
sum of this individual atomic attraction as the comparative resistance
of objects, in terms of the emergent quantity, inertial mass. We call
this quantity of resistance weight (mg), and we feel it as inertia,
here designated also as (mg) but equivalent to (ma) anywhere else. For
example, this quantitative measure of the comparative resistance of
objects is also demonstrated in impact experiments, say with billiard
balls, and noted as the conservation of momentum.

It is important to recognize that the balance scale action tells us
nothing about the specific origin and focus of the earth attractor
action. It merely allows us to measure the resistance to that action,
in comparative terms of mass, consistent with the measure of our
tactile sense of force. If I can convey this idea alone in this post,
it will be enough.

It is illuminating to note that the emergent quantity "mass" as a
measure of the comparative resistance of inertial objects is a logical
consequence of the earth attractor atomic attraction. It is also
illuminating to note that our tactile sense of physical force, defined
in terms of the emergent quantity mass, allows us, as inertial objects,
to set the earth attractor action as an equal and opposite
manifestation of the physical force we feel, because the force we feel
as an inertial object, is equal and opposite to any force we must apply
to lift an inertial object. The pressure on the scale is equal to the
pressure we work against, by definition.

However, for equal and opposite to apply as a universal controlling
force, the focus of the earth attractor and the focus of our "feel"
of force must share a common causal quantity. We quantify the
resistance we feel in terms of the comparative measure of mass, where
the earth attractor acts on the atom, independent of its mass.

(2) All objects fall at the same rate if dropped at the same time from
the same height:
Each constituent atom falls at the same rate whether it exists in
electromagnetic part (as a charged or uncharged particle), alone (as a
stable atom), or bound within a large aggregate of atoms, independent
of our measure of resistance in comparative terms of mass.

Where we, as inertial objects, are attracted to the earth by an
undetected action on our constituent atoms. Where we only feel this
action in terms of resistance, when pressed to the earth's surface.
Where the atomic attraction is measured as the comparative resistance
of the sum of the acted upon atoms. Where inertia and momentum are each
necessarily proportional to the comparative mass of the summed atoms.
And where we as inertial objects interact with similarly acted upon
inertial objects, provides us the perspective that is necessary to
recognize that classical mechanics when applied to the emergent
quantity mass, is the science of the mechanics of the physical
interactions between inertial objects, within a field that does not
act on mass or on its measured consequences, inertia and momentum.

I am reminded of the quote, "The fish is the last to discover water."
Perhaps by Einstein. Although my articulation of these ideas can and
will be vastly improved, note how nicely**** our "feel of force" (1)
and our "perplexing" freefall phenomenon (2), is concurrently
explained. Also note the door to conceptual comprehension that has been
opened.

The reader might recognize that we have the connection here between our
tactile sense of attraction to the earth and a benign (with respect to
our senses) manifestation of electromagnetism, which we have heretofore
thought that we feel only in its electric or charged form. Here we can
see that we feel it as inertia, where we do not feel it as charge.

* Consider the recent development of alternate theories, that
explain this phenomenon in terms of our limited perception, following
the lead of Einstein's imaginary elevator experiment. On the newsgroup,
Joe Fischer and Dave Orton, with their spectacular, but rather reaching
(pun intended) idea for "divergent" or expanding matter, immediately
comes to mind.
Another newsgroup example that shows the theoretical though misdirected
significance we attach to the phenomenon, can be found at Uncle Al's
website, where he has compiled an exhaustive reference base citing the
many verifications of the "anonymous" (a term used by Uncle Al for
certain, and possibly others) nature of mass.
Moreover, an examination of the internet worldwide reveals the large
amount of alternative thinking that has resulted from the consideration
of this phenomenon alone. The park is filled with soap box orators.
** As a partial result, the gravitational force has remained a
mystery and unexplainable in terms that can be unified with our
understanding of electromagnetism. Einstein and many others attempted
such a unification unsuccessfully during the 20th century.
*** This followed my recognition that the common principle that runs
through all stable systems is "least action" (see Takes 1A and 1B),
where planet orbits are merely a specific case.
**** I do not want to overly detail, and so overly complexify, this
post, but I have not eliminated the possibility that the earth
attractor acts on our surface atoms, where we feel our entire inertial
mass and quantify it in terms of weight. I base my reservation on the
role of the quantity (r) in our gravitational calculations, where both
the surface area and the volume of a sphere are each proportional to
(r), and where a hollow and solid sphere each behave gravitationally
the same. This coupled with the idea that the internal atoms of an
object are already attracted at all surfaces. More contemplation in
this area is ongoing.
***** One might read Take 15 together with the supplemental post to
same, for another "nice" conceptual explanation, in this instance, for
the Einstein-Bose Condensate. This in terms of a constructive fusion
process that follows as a consequence of the Take 6 atomic structure.
This can also be applied to the Take V.I introduction to the idea of a
constructive fusion process for star mechanics.

If the reader wishes to examine the reference "Takes" noted herein,
type "johnreed take" at the Google.group screen and click the
search button. Then click on the sort by date option at the mid upper
right on your screen, to avoid my earlier, even more primitive
attempts, to succinctly articulate these ideas.
johnreed.

Newton's ad hoc solution for applying terrestial ballistics to
Keplerian orbital geometry involved shutting the solar system off from
the rest of the visible cosmos -

"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." Newton

As the focus of the ballistic agenda was a local solution based on
variations from the AU * using a calendrically driven astronomical
format,everyone is stuck with piling ad hoc solutions on top of ad hoc
solutions in order to keep the original Newtonian
experiment/observation agenda afloat.Terrestial ballistics applied to
planetary motions look correct and it was not a bad attempt for 17th
century data but this is the 21st century and the data suggests the the
solar system has a distinct motion in one direction about a galactic
axis which was discovered 80 years ago.

The bottom line is that,in contrast to the locally bound Newtonian
solution for Keplerian orbital motion,the affect of the solar system's
motion on planetary heliocentricity motion must be taken into account
or at least acknowledged as a viable avenue to pursue in dealing with
Keplerian orbital motion.





"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

In message .com,
oriel36 writes
Newton's ad hoc solution for applying terrestial ballistics to
Keplerian orbital geometry involved shutting the solar system off from
the rest of the visible cosmos -


No.
You've been told this before, but try calculating the influence of alpha
Centauri on the orbits of the planets. Hint: inverse square law.

I really do not have the patience for your pathetic and apolitical
Newtonian views,if anyone cares to graft in the influence of the solar
system's galactic orbital motion on heliocentric motion then they
break the ad hoc localised Newtonian solution which shuts off any
external influence on heliocentric motion.(and the visible stars move
more or less in unison in one direction around the galactic axis)

Stick with your isolated solar system as is your choice,I am still
waiting for a responsible person to appear who can deal with the
material like men .I appreceate what Newton was doing even if you
cannot and while your reference to Alpha Centauri must certainly
impress others who no know better,it still leaves me isolated among
people who are enamored by Newtonian stupidity that they think is a
remarkable exercise in political maneuvering.At least I give the man
credit for trying but not for the silly technical maneuvering which
colors his cartoon calendrically driven framework.


For people who are productive,the millstone of empiricism attached to
astronomy is irritating at best and mindnumbingly boring at worst.Stick
with your Newtonian view,it spares me having to deal with you again.




"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I." Newton

'Johnreed's' style sounds a lot like old Gezza/oriel, an arts student trying to write science. Give
it up Gez :-)

--
John Carruthers
http://mysite.freeserve.com/jc_atm/
wrote in message
oups.com...
As I continued my analysis of Newtonian gravitation (see Take 1C), I
noted that the idea for a "mass generated" gravitational force is a
consequence of three facts: (1) Our tactile sense of attraction to the
earth. (2) The quantification of this sense, in terms of the product
of mass and the rate of acceleration accompanying the attraction, at
the earth's surface, as weight (mg). (3) Newton's third law that
sets weight (mg) equal and opposite to the action caused by the earth
attractor.

In Take 1B I indicated that any challenge of Newton's third law, as it
applies to (3) and as it applies to celestial objects at a distance, in
general, must also provide a rational explanation for the fact that all
objects fall at the same rate, when dropped at the same time, from the
same height. This is necessary because this property of objects in
freefall is explained as a consequence of Newton's third law. I noted
that even with the third law, the phenomenon has perplexed us* to
varying degrees,** over the years.

Our conceptual difficulty arises from the idea that our tactile sense
of attraction to the earth is generated by "mass", where mass is
not affected by the earth attractor in a manner that is intuitively
consistent with our feel of a mass derived force. For example: we
explain the fact that all objects fall at the same rate, when dropped
at the same time, from the same height, as a consequence of Newton's
third law, in conjunction with the increased resistance we experience,
that accompanies an increase in mass. However, where the increased
resistance that accompanies an increase in mass, "appears" to apply
everywhere else, it clearly does not apply in freefall. We detect no
resistance (excluding atmospheric) during freefall. Hence our
designation, "freefall". We assert this resistance to conceptually
accomodate the equal and opposite equations that describe the
quantitative behavior of inertial objects, with respect to the earth
attractor action, in terms of our tactile sense of attraction to the
earth, (mg).

In Take 1C I put forward several brief, rational arguments, supporting
my conclusion that the earth attractor does not act on mass. As I
continued my analysis I used the descriptive phrase "my feel force" as
a substitute for the word "gravity"***. I considered the freefall
phenomenon properties in terms of "my feel force". I required a
"massless" explanation for gravity that explained my tactile sense
of attraction to the earth as an inertial object, and also explained
why all inertial objects fall at the same rate, when dropped at the
same time, from the same height. I sought a quantity that "is"
acted upon by the earth attractor, in a manner that is consistent with
the experimental data, and intuitively consistent with my "feel of
force". With these considerations in place, and after much subsequent
contemplation, I determined that the earth attractor acts on my
constituent parts, and not on the mass of my constituent parts.

Here, it at first appears that I have made no progress at all. How does
the phrase "constituent parts of matter" differ from the word
"matter", in describing the focus of the earth attractor action?
The difference is in the increased knowledge and perspective we have
acquired during the last 350 years. Where 350 years ago it was useful
to describe matter, solely in terms of mass, today we must precisely
define mass solely in terms of matter, as well. Today we have the
periodic table. Today constituent parts of matter, translate to "atoms"
and their electromagnetic components.

Consider:
(1) Our tactile sense of attraction to the earth:
When we are in contact with the earth, we feel the resistance of the
constituent parts of our body as the sum of the inertial mass of our
atoms, as they each*** are attracted toward the earth by an action on
the atom that we do not otherwise feel. The magnitude of the attractive
action at the earth's surface is measured in terms of acceleration
(g), independent of mass (m). With the balance scale, we measure the
sum of this individual atomic attraction as the comparative resistance
of objects, in terms of the emergent quantity, inertial mass. We call
this quantity of resistance weight (mg), and we feel it as inertia,
here designated also as (mg) but equivalent to (ma) anywhere else. For
example, this quantitative measure of the comparative resistance of
objects is also demonstrated in impact experiments, say with billiard
balls, and noted as the conservation of momentum.

It is important to recognize that the balance scale action tells us
nothing about the specific origin and focus of the earth attractor
action. It merely allows us to measure the resistance to that action,
in comparative terms of mass, consistent with the measure of our
tactile sense of force. If I can convey this idea alone in this post,
it will be enough.

It is illuminating to note that the emergent quantity "mass" as a
measure of the comparative resistance of inertial objects is a logical
consequence of the earth attractor atomic attraction. It is also
illuminating to note that our tactile sense of physical force, defined
in terms of the emergent quantity mass, allows us, as inertial objects,
to set the earth attractor action as an equal and opposite
manifestation of the physical force we feel, because the force we feel
as an inertial object, is equal and opposite to any force we must apply
to lift an inertial object. The pressure on the scale is equal to the
pressure we work against, by definition.

However, for equal and opposite to apply as a universal controlling
force, the focus of the earth attractor and the focus of our "feel"
of force must share a common causal quantity. We quantify the
resistance we feel in terms of the comparative measure of mass, where
the earth attractor acts on the atom, independent of its mass.

(2) All objects fall at the same rate if dropped at the same time from
the same height:
Each constituent atom falls at the same rate whether it exists in
electromagnetic part (as a charged or uncharged particle), alone (as a
stable atom), or bound within a large aggregate of atoms, independent
of our measure of resistance in comparative terms of mass.

Where we, as inertial objects, are attracted to the earth by an
undetected action on our constituent atoms. Where we only feel this
action in terms of resistance, when pressed to the earth's surface.
Where the atomic attraction is measured as the comparative resistance
of the sum of the acted upon atoms. Where inertia and momentum are each
necessarily proportional to the comparative mass of the summed atoms.
And where we as inertial objects interact with similarly acted upon
inertial objects, provides us the perspective that is necessary to
recognize that classical mechanics when applied to the emergent
quantity mass, is the science of the mechanics of the physical
interactions between inertial objects, within a field that does not
act on mass or on its measured consequences, inertia and momentum.

I am reminded of the quote, "The fish is the last to discover water."
Perhaps by Einstein. Although my articulation of these ideas can and
will be vastly improved, note how nicely**** our "feel of force" (1)
and our "perplexing" freefall phenomenon (2), is concurrently
explained. Also note the door to conceptual comprehension that has been
opened.

The reader might recognize that we have the connection here between our
tactile sense of attraction to the earth and a benign (with respect to
our senses) manifestation of electromagnetism, which we have heretofore
thought that we feel only in its electric or charged form. Here we can
see that we feel it as inertia, where we do not feel it as charge.

* Consider the recent development of alternate theories, that
explain this phenomenon in terms of our limited perception, following
the lead of Einstein's imaginary elevator experiment. On the newsgroup,
Joe Fischer and Dave Orton, with their spectacular, but rather reaching
(pun intended) idea for "divergent" or expanding matter, immediately
comes to mind.
Another newsgroup example that shows the theoretical though misdirected
significance we attach to the phenomenon, can be found at Uncle Al's
website, where he has compiled an exhaustive reference base citing the
many verifications of the "anonymous" (a term used by Uncle Al for
certain, and possibly others) nature of mass.
Moreover, an examination of the internet worldwide reveals the large
amount of alternative thinking that has resulted from the consideration
of this phenomenon alone. The park is filled with soap box orators.
** As a partial result, the gravitational force has remained a
mystery and unexplainable in terms that can be unified with our
understanding of electromagnetism. Einstein and many others attempted
such a unification unsuccessfully during the 20th century.
*** This followed my recognition that the common principle that runs
through all stable systems is "least action" (see Takes 1A and 1B),
where planet orbits are merely a specific case.
**** I do not want to overly detail, and so overly complexify, this
post, but I have not eliminated the possibility that the earth
attractor acts on our surface atoms, where we feel our entire inertial
mass and quantify it in terms of weight. I base my reservation on the
role of the quantity (r) in our gravitational calculations, where both
the surface area and the volume of a sphere are each proportional to
(r), and where a hollow and solid sphere each behave gravitationally
the same. This coupled with the idea that the internal atoms of an
object are already attracted at all surfaces. More contemplation in
this area is ongoing.
***** One might read Take 15 together with the supplemental post to
same, for another "nice" conceptual explanation, in this instance, for
the Einstein-Bose Condensate. This in terms of a constructive fusion
process that follows as a consequence of the Take 6 atomic structure.
This can also be applied to the Take V.I introduction to the idea of a
constructive fusion process for star mechanics.

If the reader wishes to examine the reference "Takes" noted herein,
type "johnreed take" at the Google.group screen and click the
search button. Then click on the sort by date option at the mid upper
right on your screen, to avoid my earlier, even more primitive
attempts, to succinctly articulate these ideas.
johnreed.

Oriel - you cannot spell, you have no demonstrable knowledge of
science, you do nothing but rant out of context. You are a true troll
- totally ignorant but wanting attention. Visit Abdul (he is a
taxidermist....).

J


oriel36 wrote:
Newton's ad hoc solution for applying terrestial ballistics to
Keplerian orbital geometry involved shutting the solar system off from
the rest of the visible cosmos -
huge snip

In message .com,
oriel36 writes
I really do not have the patience for your pathetic and apolitical
Newtonian views,

Would you rather have political Newtonian views? (Whatever that means. I
have this image of a telescope that only works on the left side :-)

it spares me having to deal with you again.

Don't worry about that. Your post only showed up because I lost my kill
rules.

Here is how you look at the annual orbital motion of the Earth-

http://encarta.msn.com/media_4615477...real_Time.html

A system based on 3 year of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days keeping the
whole thing ticking over.

It is also apolitical,so stupid that it does not even constitute a
political view or ends, something like flat Earthers with the added
stomachturning realisation that you are in the majority.

There is no precedence for the destruction of a discipline involved in
natural phenomena such as that which occured in astronomy,a destruction
which still prevails,partly due to the expansion of an ill-suited
method applied to astronomical principles and partly due to the
intutive atrophy which would normally recognise the validity of the
original astronomical insights and the misjudgements and carelessness
of later people.

In accepting the endeavor to call attension to exactly where the errors
were created,it took a number of years to trace it to Flamsteed and
Newton for their respective agendas.The errors can be proposed
graphically and amount to the hideous attempt to hammer Copernican
heliocentricity into a calendrically driven framework -

http://encarta.msn.com/media_4615477...real_Time.html

Shame on those who should know better while the great majority,either
through unfamiliarity or incapacity,are excused from the blame for
partaking in sidereal working principles which amount to science
fiction.

Take a good look at your sidereal system which requires 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days and then try to propose yourselves as
astronomers.Whatever you are,I assure you that you are not.

In article .com,
oriel36 wrote:

For people who are productive,the millstone of empiricism attached to
astronomy is irritating at best and mindnumbingly boring at worst.Stick
with your Newtonian view,it spares me having to deal with you again.

So, Mr Productive, just what has your approach produced?

-- Richard