Re: johnreed take 25 - Part-3 - Modified September 30, 2008
- From: johnlawrencereedjr <randamajor@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
jr writes>
Hello Jacko. I extend my usual apology for being delayed in my
response.
Gravity is a physical phenomenon that we feel and work against, which
we have quantified in terms of our inertial mass (as an inertial
object), and generalized to the entire universe using least action
mathematics (as the vehicle) that applies to the stable system least
action universe in general, where mass (resistance) altho' conserved
locally, wrt celestial objects operates anonymously within the
parameters of this least action vehicle, which is a property of
conserved quantities in general. What we feel in the case of our
attraction to the earth, resistance (our mass), is not what is being
acted upon. The earth attractor does not act on resistance (mass). It
acts on atoms (matter). Briefly, if it did act on resistance (inertial
mass) we could not peel ourselves from the surface of the planet. The
more resistance we applied the more resistance we would have to
overcome. And the earth is rather large. Equal and opposite are
"gravitationally" functional for our subjective purposes (resistance,
work, etc.), but otherwise not with universal causal standing
(gravitationally speaking).
The estimation of mass is a process which reduces the error of
measurement, so with mass moved to the best position in the
inequality, An equality with mass defining the precision ofsolidity
in
muual obsrvation of observables comes about.
jr writes>
If I wanted stuff like this in response I would post in a new theories
group. You probably think that you are saying something that everyone
should understand. You may have something of value here, I have no way
of telling. Someone once said "The fish are the last to discover
water." Your "comes about" may refer to such a discovery. Do a search
on "crank theories" to gain an idea of what you are up against. Not
that I mean you are a crank but that you should examine less than
perfectly clear explanations so that you can avoid or at least
minimize them.
Masses as oscilating entities, does it lead to a simpler wave theory
of gravity??
jr writes>
This is clearer to me. It should read "Matter (atoms) as oscillating
entities". Matter is matter. Resistance is resistance. Where
resistance is subjectively quantifiable in terms of our inertial mass,
where EM pure oscillations (atomic) generally refer to regular cyclic
action (frequency) independent of (pendulum like) resistance . Read
Part 1 of my post. If you still retain the subjective notion that the
force you feel [mg] is causally fundamental to the ordered universe,
read all 3 again. The ten pages are well worth the time it will take
you to read them. In fact, in my upcoming book, this post's chapter
title may eventually be "10 Pages That Shook The World". My post is
ten pages in 3 parts and it is pregnant with information, beyond that
which I have so far, noted, but which can be deduced. Or access my
earlier posts on gravity for rudiments. My post here eliminates
gravity and both particle forces. It eliminates singularities and
reorients quantum mechanics and it provides the basis for a unified
field... ie. if compacted electromagnetic fields serve to describe the
structure of atoms... where you figure mass generated gravity fits in,
as a universal causal force, is beyond me. Search for "johnreed take
23" most recent date. It's short, which for me means under 3 pages.
Overall, I have only a bare bones idea what you think you are saying
here. If you want to explain gravity in subjective terms using
inertial mass (a quantitative measure of resistance that we, as
inertial objects, feel and work against), both Newton and Einstein
precede you. I see Newton and Einstein in partial error. In the long
haul I am certain that I am in partial error as well. Even so, you
have to grasp the whole of what preceded you before you can address
the problem. What I mean is: at the very least, make certain that you
have mastered the fundamentals of the areas of mainstream physics that
you are interested in, before you start with your own stuff.
Beyond this, if you think that your statement and question apply in
some way to my post you have not made the connection clear. Brevity
is an ideal but not at the permanent expense of conceptual clarity.
Whatever you do, have a good time,
johnreed
cheers
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Again: Rotating magnetic field
- Next by Date: SP and QM experimenatlly broken
- Previous by thread: Re: johnreed take 25 - Part-3 - Modified September 30, 2008
- Next by thread: Re: johnreed take 25 - Part-3 - Modified September 30, 2008
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
