Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- From: "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 23:04:34 GMT
<randamajor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1116963658.733574.143030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > randamajor@xxxxxxxxx
> > 'The question does arise, " Does the earth attractor act on each atom of
the
> > gold chunk, or does it act on the specific mass of each atom?"'
> >
> > Since the mass of an atom is an intrinsic property the question is
> > meaningless.
> >
> > Bill
>
> What you are saying then is: Since we have no way to distinguish
> between the two, we regard them as intrinsically the same.
No. I am saying that mass is a property matter has like electric charge -
uncharged particles have a charge of zero - massless particles have a mass
of 0. Why do particles have this property? In the case of mass we think
the Higgs field has something to do with it - in the case of charge
according to Kaluza Klein theory it depends on its initial velocity in the
5th dimension. But you really have not progressed much beyond saying it is
simply a property particles can have.
>
> What I said previously was: We can perform no experiment that can
> differentiate between the atom and its mass, such that we can tell
> which is being acted upon by the earth attractor.
John statements of this nature - like discussing the number of angels that
can dance on the head of a pin - is a dead end. If you think otherwise try
making a prediction that can test it.
Bill
>
> You wave away the difficulty in a similar fashion as did Newton with
> regard to planetary matter. He said, "Since it is true for all matter
> we can experimentally verify, it is true for all matter whatsoever."
> (paraphrased)
>
> But Newton had no further evidence before him. Dante's Inferno defined
> the inner workings of the earth at the time and atoms were still a
> notion of the ancients.
>
> I suppose it relates in some manner to the idea of experimental
> verification being required for any avenue of thought. Since we cannot
> tell the difference between the two experimentally, they are the same.
>
> It is often the case that we just don't accept the result from
> experiment at face value. Free fall, escape velocity and orbit velocity
> all show that mass does not enter into the earth attractor mathematics.
> So what do we have left for the earth attractor to act on?
>
> Where you would wave it away, I instead developed a system from it. And
> my system leads to all kinds of non-contradictory rational explanations
> that assimilate anomolies (sp?) and conundrums that arise from the
> mainstream view.
>
> I have yet to get to most of them. I keep coming back to the problem of
> mass. I think I will push on with other aspects of it, its just hard to
> discontinue arguments that challenge gravity, because gravity is the
> cause of all our esoteric mathematics.
>
> johnreed
>
.
- References:
- johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- From: randamajor
- Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- From: randamajor
- johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- Prev by Date: Re: simple question on twin paradox
- Next by Date: Re: The future of this newsgroup.
- Previous by thread: Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- Next by thread: Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
