Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- From: randamajor@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 1 Jun 2005 14:57:00 -0700
Bill Hobba wrote:
> <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
jr writes>
Yes, and this property of matter, mass, we believe is the property of
matter that generates our "feel" of attraction to the earth. Which we
assign to the entire universe as a controlling force. But, if the
proportional aspect of the attractor focus is on stable states of
matter, and not on the "mass" of stable states of matter, it changes
our entire paradigm. What we have now is a 50-50 chance either way, as
I see it.
like electric charge -
> uncharged particles have a charge of zero
jr writes>
Stable elements with all electrons intact also have a charge of 0. Only
when the electron is removed do we have a charge. This speaks to, again
as I see it, the electromagnetic formation of matter. A stable element
will be attracted to either a large atomic aggregate or a one with a
randamajor (see take V.1) core.
- massless particles have a mass
> of 0. Why do particles have this property?
jr writes>
Here are you referencing theoretical particles like the neutrino and
photon? Or are you referencing something more tangible.
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.
jr writes>
I see three space dimensions and one time dimension. Some mathematical
use can be derived from the combination that at least retains a
connection to reality however obscured. But when you interject 5, 6, 7
etc etc and etc dimensions, just because you can algebraically, as
elegant and effective as it may appear to be, in terms of numbers, it
is an indiscriminate use of mathematics to foist a picture of reality
from it, onto the rest of humanity.
But you really have not progressed much beyond saying it is
> simply a property particles can have.
jr writes>
Well Bill, an expansion of take 6 will clarify the nature of particles.
Anyone can do this in terms of the "chrome ring" structure. It does not
require me any more. I have to focus on the foundational errors we
retain to insure that the entire field is covered. Only when I am
satisfied that enough information has been made available will I return
to expand on this area. Suffice it for now to say that those particles
created and released by the elements are fundamental. The rest are
largely rubble.
> >
> > 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.
jr writes>
Uh? I think that was my original point Bill. Since none exists we have
a 50-50 chance of being wrong. Isn't this worth investigating?
>>
> 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
> >
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- Prev by Date: Re: If speed was relative
- Next by Date: Re: SR on accelerating frame of reference
- Previous by thread: Re: Where Is The Kinetic Energy of a Bullet Stored?
- Next by thread: Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
