a johnreed take - Is Mass an Emergent quantity in an Electro Magnetic Universe? Part 1

a johnreed take - Is Mass an Emergent quantity in an Electro Magnetic
Universe? Part 1
Research Results on Centripetal Force, Part 1
Math and Universe, Part 3
johnreed - Catch 22
modified November 19, 2007

Isaac Newton defined centripetal force in terms of his second and
third law, to act at a distance, by setting his first law, inertial
mass object, on a circular path of motion, at a uniform orbital
speed. The model was built in the following manner: Newton allowed
the moving inertial mass object, to impact the internal side of the
circle circumference at equidistant points, to inscribe a regular
polygon. He dropped a radius to the center of the polygon from each
vertex (B) of the polygon, to describe any number of equal area
triangles. "...but when the body is arrived at B, suppose that a
centripetal force acts at once with a great impulse..." [1]
(Principia)

Although Newton defined the least action planet orbits in terms of
inertial mass, we can perform no experiment that differentiates
between the atom and the mass of the atom, such that we can absolutely
conclude that the earth attractor (read gravity) acts on mass, and not
on the atom itself [2]. In fact, the Earth attractor (1) allows
surface planet inertial mass objects (which we qualify as), to
independently interact with other surface planet inertial mass objects
quantitatively, in terms of inertial mass. And the Earth attractor
(2) enables us, as inertial mass objects, to independently quantify
the resistance we "feel" and work against, in terms of inertial mass.
This represents two sides of the same coin. Additionally, the
freefall, orbit velocity, and escape velocity, experimental data show
that (3) inertial mass "does not" enter into the controlling, Earth
attractor mathematics. This represents the coin itself. I say that
inertial mass figures into "our" mathematics because we are inertial
mass objects. However, inertial mass does not figure into the Earth
attractor mathematics, therefore, the Earth attractor does not act on
inertial mass.

Except for our tactile "sense" of attraction to the Earth, as inertial
mass objects, which we feel as resistance and quantify in terms of our
inertial mass (m), as weight (mg), inertial mass is independent of the
Earth attractor action. "We are certainly not to relinquish the
evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of
our own devising." (Principia) Even so, these results have continued
to center on the Newtonian explained freefall, equal and opposite
"inertial mass" impact (independent physical contact) data [3], and
today, provide the quantitative basis for Einstein's observer
dependent, postulated equivalence principle.

Consider:
Either our tactile sense of attraction to the Earth (gravity), which
we feel as resistance, designate as force, and isolate quantitatively
in terms of our 'inertial mass' as weight [mg], generates the least
action, time constrained, planet orbits, as defined by Isaac Newton,
or the least action planet orbits are the reason we can isolate the
emergent quantity "inertial mass" [m] on the balance scale, and our
tactile sense of attraction to the Earth (gravity), which we feel as
resistance, and quantify as weight [mg], is caused by the Earth
attractor action on our constituent atoms [4], holding us to the
Earth's surface. In other words, inertial mass generates the least
action planet orbits, or the least action planet orbits allow us to
isolate the quantity inertial mass on the balance scale. Is this a
reasonable "either/or" proposition? Are they each mutually exclusive,
or can they both be true, as defined by Isaac Newton and postulated by
Albert Einstein?

It has been shown to an experimental accuracy of twelve decimal places
[5] that inertial mass "does not" enter into the Earth attractor
mathematics during freefall, orbit velocity, and escape velocity
experiments. I can show that the least action planet orbits are the
reason we can isolate the quantity, inertial mass, on the balance
scale. The orbits function within the time constraints of a least
action principle. Freefall functions within the same constraint
(equal areas in equal times). Whatever the cause of the shared least
action principle, that least action principle allows us to isolate
inertial mass on the balance scale.

For:
If all objects did not fall at the same rate, when dropped at the same
time from the same height, we would be unable to separate the planet
attractor surface, accelerative action (g) from the mass of the
inertial object (m), measured on the balance scale as (mg). There
would be no, specific to each planet, common accelerative action (g)
based solely on distance and time (r) and (t), for falling objects, as
(g) would vary with the falling object's weight (w = mg) as well. In
such a case our "tactile sense of attraction" that Isaac Newton
quantified generally as gravitational force (centripetal force =
gravitational force = weight = mg), and that we feel as resistance,
could be measured on the balance scale only in terms of weight (w),
and not in terms of weight (mg). In other words, if all objects did
not fall at the same rate when dropped at the same time from the same
height, we would have no emergent quantity called inertial mass [m],
to investigate. In such a case, the idea for an "unencumbered" field
with respect to mass, required for Newton's first and second laws,
could not exist (nor could we exist). Consequently, I say that
inertial mass is emergent in a field that does not act on the property
of matter we feel as resistance and independently quantify in terms of
our inertial mass [m], as weight [mg]. Therefore, and as experiment
indicates, the Earth attractor acts on our atoms and not on the mass
of our atoms. In other words, the Earth attractor acts on matter and
not on mass.

Einstein's idea that Newton's first law applies to planet orbits
because the planets travel a least action curved space-time geodesic,
extends Newton's definition of a circular (least action), inertial
mass generated view of the least action planetary motion, by further
co-opting the least action planet orbits, within an extended 4D space-
time mathematical model. While maintaining our centrist view for a
mass generated notion for gravity, Einstein backed into a more
accurate, partially electromagnetic, least action mathematical frame.
Where a defined curved space-time is arbitrarily designated as the
cause of the least action orbits.

For now, I'll leave it to the reader to contemplate the argument that
the earth attractor acts on our constituent atoms and not on their
mass, and to:

1) Consider how well black holes, curved space-time, and the big bang,
will survive theoretically where the Earth attractor acts on our atoms
(matter) and not on our mass. 2) Show that the balance scale measures
inertial mass and that, "gravitational" mass does not exist. 3) Show
that the planet inertial mass has an eccentric effect on the super-
electromagnetically controlled least action planet orbits, and that
the planet inertial mass may figure as a cause of the precession of
the planets. 4) Consider possible reasons for the Pioneer anomalies.
5) Consider possible reasons for the Foucault pendulum anomalies
during total solar eclipses. 6) Consider non-Newtonian alternatives
for dark matter and energy (See johnreed Take 23 - Dark Matter).

Endnotes:
[1] The verbal argument Newton used to connect his inertial mass
driven centripetal force to Kepler's laws was, at the time of my
original posting, by my notes here, vague. I had loosely traced it
from the balance scale through the pendulum to Jupiter's moons and the
Sun. I have since traced it precisely (See Part 2 of this post or
Math and Universe, most recent date). Newton used the third law which
provided the equal and opposite, attraction-resistance pair. Though
as Einstein was "happy" to learn later, we feel no resistance during
freefall (excluding air resistance). This would be the case if the
Earth attractor acts on our atoms and not on our mass. However the
sole purpose of my argument here is to show that Newton defined
centripetal force in terms of inertial mass. This explains the
assumptive equivalence directly. The reason inertial and so called
gravitational mass are quantitatively the same will be further
entertained in another post, shortly (See part 2 of this post).

[2] The atom also serves as a basis for an electromagnetic explanation
for the resistance Newton felt and called centripetal force, and set
equivalent to the 'a priori' human notion for "gravity". The fact is,
if we discount the freefall, orbit velocity and escape velocity data
which show that inertial mass does not figure into the Earth attractor
mathematics, we may soon learn that molecular chirality introduces a
small variance in the rate of freefall (See Uncle Al's website).
Chirality is an atomic-molecular phenomenon. If Uncle Al's
experiments are verified, chirality may figure as a primary rather
than a secondary (dependent on mass) aspect of the Earth attractor
action.

[3] Isaac Newton's interpretation of the freefall phenomenon; Albert
Einstein's interpretation of the freefall data; and my interpretation
of those data; lead to entirely different conclusions. Einstein
postulated that because he could not feel his own weight (resistance)
in freefall, and because he could not tell if he was in an accelerated
frame, or in a gravitational frame, and because the measured, so
called gravitational mass, and the measured inertial mass are
quantitatively the same, they are in fact, the same. I will expand on
this in my next post.

[4] This is not to say that the Earth attractor acts on atoms and not
on particles. The Earth attractor acts on all material objects. The
atom is the fundamental unit of matter that is proportionally
equivalent to mass with respect to pure stable elements. I say that
the Earth attractor acts on matter and not on mass. We cannot perform
an experiment to prove otherwise because the mass of an atom and the
atom itself are directly proportional. In the case of pure elements,
the number of atoms can be "very nearly" calculated, directly from the
mass. This is true for any object, provided we know the precise
composition of the object. However, measuring the mass of a shovel
full of dirt will provide no precise information on its composition
and therefore no information on the number of atoms acted upon by the
Earth attractor. Since the Earth attractor acts on all atoms equally,
independent of their mass, we can suspect that a small deviation
(Pioneer anomalies) in our quantitative but nonetheless subjective
'inertial mass' [m] dependent, accelerative calculations for force,
might occur in extreme cases. "... we are to look upon propositions
inferred by general deduction... as very near true... until such time as
other phenomena occur by which they may either be made more accurate,
or liable to exception." (Principia)

[5] Many of my notes were compiled years ago. The degree of accuracy
here has increased since then. The reader may find up to date and
comprehensive data on this at Uncle Al's website.
johnreed
.

Relevant Pages

  • Is Mass an Emergent Quantity in an Electro Magnetic Universe?
    ... Is Mass an Emergent Quantity in an Electro Magnetic Universe? ... The model was built in the following manner: Newton allowed the moving ... inertial mass object, to impact the internal side of the circle ... conclude that the earth attractor acts on mass, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Is Mass an Emergent Quantity in an Electro Magnetic Universe?
    ... Is Mass an Emergent Quantity in an Electro Magnetic Universe? ... The model was built in the following manner: Newton allowed the moving ... inertial mass object, to impact the internal side of the circle ... conclude that the earth attractor acts on mass, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • math and universe - parts 3 and 4 - modified August 30,2007
    ... This post puts forward the argument that inertial mass is "emergent" ... third law, to act at a distance, by setting his first law object on an ... circular, centripetal force caused, inertial mass generated ...
    (sci.physics)
  • johnreed math and universe Parts 3 and 4 September 11, 2007
    ... argument that inertial mass is "emergent" in the classical, so called, ... third law, to act at a distance, by setting his first law object on an ... circular, centripetal force caused, inertial mass generated ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: johnreed Catch 22
    ... inertial mass, we can perform no experiment that differentiates between ... that the earth attractor acts on mass and not on the atom itself. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast