Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- From: randamajor@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 4 Jun 2005 14:50:09 -0700
Bill Hobba wrote:
> <randamajor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1117663020.312722.45030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> The property of mass has nothing to do with the concept of a systems
> stability.
jr writes>
The main point of focus is the "atom and its mass". On this I think we
are clear, if in disagreement. Perhaps I should have said "states of
matter" rather than "stable states of matter". What I am leading into
here is a new view on electromagnetic attraction that includes
uncharged and unpolarized states of matter. Which is outside the
electromagnetic area by definition, I know.
Any state of matter more fundamental than an element is a component of
an electromagnetic structure. Any such component will seek stability or
decompose into an electromagnetic form, part of it seeking stability
and part converting to energy, etc. As long as we have an ionic form of
an element the primary attraction will be to an electron, and then to
the earth, altho' a simultaneous action here occurs, it is the stable
form of the element that rests on the earths surface.
Reducing the problem to the atom and its mass allows us to rebuild the
problem as a molecule and its mass, a substance and its mass, an object
and its mass, all the way back to Newton's body and its mass. So long
as we recognize that two distinct options are available for the focus
of the earth attractor and that the proportionality between the
gravitational and inertial aspects of this attraction results from the
attractor focus on the atom and not on its mass. I must disengage here
as I am pressed for time and trying to include too much within it. I
will expand on this in the form of a take.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> I fail to see your logic.
jr writes>
Take 6 explains this best Bill. Elements are states of electromagnetic
fields that have attained stability in substantive form. Once such an
electromagnetic structure obtains a parity with its surround such that
it utilizes its external electron shell to enter into molecular
arrangements that retain a stable form for the atoms, the
electromagnetic structure manifests as 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.
>
> Photons and Neutrinos are about as tangible as you can get.
jr writes>
Well this is the particle paradigm, true. The take 6 structure explains
the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect without the use of the
photon, however, the photon is still a useful mathematical artifact.
The neutrino was reluctantly proposed by Wolfgang Pauli to resolve an
energy discretion at the time. It too rests on the particle view of
matter.
> > 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.
>
> Any theory in accord with observation is as good as any other - regardless
> of what you think of its assumptions.
jr writes>
I think that the mathematics can be used to represent a conceptually
clear picture of reality, provided we can obtain such a view. I also
think that the mathematics can be used to manipulate least action
systems in a manner that conforms with a priori assumptions that we
have. For example: the fact that "mass" does not enter into the earth
attractor mathematics during free fall, escape velocity and orbit, can
be generalized to all the other planets. Mass does not figure into any
of these frames. Least action does. So we assign our local properties
of inertially defined mass to the entire universe, using the least
action vehicle, common to stable systems.>
> > 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
jr writes>
Here again you leave an important aspect of the discussion out. I have
devoted much of my life to this stuff Bill and I am able to state my
case with some clarity. I have been circumspect in my analysis to
arrive where I am. Still, I could be wrong. But we will never know
unless we entertain rational options.
johnreed
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
- References:
- Re: 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
- Prev by Date: Re: Imagine
- Next by Date: Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- Previous by thread: Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- Next by thread: Re: johnreed take 13 - 2005 first draft
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
