Re: johnreed take 20

Hi David:
Again I apologize for what appears to be, even to me, rampant errors
in the main body of this post. Thanks for going into detail. I will
study your reponse.

Wrt to the added note. I had just finished a response to Joe Fischer in
take 1c. I am always pressed for time on the computer so when I get to
a momentary pause in my thinking during a response, I have to
discontinue the line of reasoning, rather than eat up computer time
just thinking.

The thoughts remain in the periphery of my mind however. So when I
noted I had enough time to throw out some red shifted idea stuff
(always an ill advised endeavor, so far), my mind provided the added
statement to Joe Fischer you refer to. And I included it here, to
augment later.

The reason I included it, in part is: Joe mentioned the 19th century
problems with action at a distance which were eventually resolved with
the field. Even w/o the field however, action at a distance for these
early reasons did not bother me.

Where we set mg=GMm/r^2

We define the product Mm after our own inertial image in sole
conjunction with least action properties. If Mm were say 36. It could
be 6,6 4,9 etc. So, based on the local least action kinematics and our
isolation of the quantity mass, within that frame, we utilize the least
action vehicle defined by r, and essentially declare that the masses
will be consistent with our notion of weight. So if m=6, when we divide
it out, M must be 6.

Its not that local laws of physics cannot be applied elsewhere.
However, applying our "feel" force in terms of [mg] as a cause of the
least action behavior of the universe is pure assumptive centrism to
me. We are merely riding the least action thread that exists in stable
systems and carrying our "feel" force with us.

Do I have a particular reason for challenging this view? Yes. If the
severe pressure that is held to exist within star forming galactic
clouds results in an electro magnetic response which I call
constructive fusion, rather than a blackhole our entire gravitational
paradigm must be modified.

My time is running out David. Thanks again for your corrections. I will
contemplate this idea more and get back.
Have a good time.
johnreed

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GNU 7-Ply
    ... still hasn't come up with a response. ... The only reason I'm leaving it is because me and a friend had a bet ... David C. Ullrich ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: How much class can we stand?
    ... I'm Listening to Reason!" ... that their insults are better, or warranted, or more ... even one response by me. ... Art and David for example. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: OT United Nations Offers Help...
    ... but she is more upset about what the Mayor ... > broke, however, the "one" that caused the resulting flooding of the city ... Was the slow response of rescue because ... > reason why there was no quick response? ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Re: Thunderbird and KDE
    ... >> And speaking of your response to ... If I think she can reason deductively, ... > enough it will be over with the generalizations' general genericness. ... > Anyway, no, I'm not Australian, I'm Dutch. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering
    ... bicycling. ... to see the possibility of reason in alternative views. ... (Okay, there I exhibited irritation, but your remark implies a failure ... thought, actions, and response that got me safely out of what was ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)