Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained
- From: NoEinstein <noeinstein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 6, 9:18 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <randama...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear John L. Reed:
The mess that status quo science finds itself in is in large measure
due to the disdain of those in academia for verbal descriptions. Too
much favor is being shown to often vague mathematical equations that
conveniently leave off explaining just what each factor, constant or
variable represents. Though “the math” can work, the physics doesn’t
necessarily work. But most people who read just the equations are
none-the-wiser—that is, unless a person does the REASONING, too.
Nature has programmed humans to reason is WORDS that are thought, but
seldom spoken. Very few problems are ever solved while talking. But
many are solved while thinking analytically in words.
Your virtue (and your vice) is your excellent verbal ability. The
latter is your vice, because you expound too profusely to keep the
readers reading. Even so, you show a thirst for understanding. When
the current explanations of things doesn’t satisfy you, you propose,
in your own words, better lines of reasoning. At least for you, the
science is made to be clearer.
A conundrum of science that has eluded being answered by most, before
yours truly, is: “What (the hell) is the mechanism of gravity?”
Einstein successfully duped the intellectually inferior into believing
that gravity is just “warped” space-time. He postulated that objects
will… “accelerate along their world lines in the space-time
continuum.” And he supposed that such accelerations will always be in
the direction of the more… “warped” space-time. His notion seems to
work for objects flying past a more massive one. But he never managed
to explain how a person standing still on the surface of the Earth
could be accelerating along their ‘world line’, when in actuality they
keep having the same fixed space-time relationship to planet Earth.
The latter verbally expressed conundrum doesn’t faze status quo
physics, because having reasoning ability wasn’t a prerequisite for
their becoming Einsteiniacs. Only stupidity was!
Einstein was correct about mass being convertible to energy. At more
and more micro scales, mass is just flowing energy. When you touch
your forearm with the opposite index finger, the skin indents. But on
an atomic level the energy concentrations in your finger oppose the
energy concentrations in your forearm. So, what is… mass? My New
Science definition: “Mass is any relatively stable concentration of
energy which will resist the free passage of the ether through it.
The resistance (force) to ether flow is in direct proportion to the
mass per unit volume.” Both the mass and Earth weight of any given
object represent the same concentration of the energy therein, whether
the mass is near the surface of the Earth, or passing through the
Swiss Cheese voids between galaxies, which are devoid of ether energy,
because such was scavenged to create the stars in the galaxies.
The ether’s density is greater near where the mass is concentrated.
In fact, both ether density and rate of flow, downward, obey the
inverse square law. The easy-to-understand MECHANISM of gravity is:
“Downward flowing ether which exerts a force on each object on Earth
in direct proportion to that object’s size and density.” For all
practical purposes the force of gravity is uniform near the surface of
the Earth.
Inertia represents: “The conglomerate force necessary to change the
velocity of any mass, above its present component velocity, and in the
same direction.” My New Science has the ’units’ being (just) POUNDS
for: Weight, mass, inertia, energy, momentum and power. Power is just
the amount of FORCE which is available to be used continuously. But
to in any way express how long that force is being utilized doesn’t
change the fact that power is simply pounds. If power companies wish
to quantify how much force was utilized for how long, that can by
their conventional unit of measurement of KWH. But the force is just
the force equivalent of a KW, or 738 pounds (NOT foot-pounds!)
There is an incredible “inertia” on the part of the stupid to clean
up the status quo garbage which has passed for science. But when such
a cleanup finally happens, parents need not send their little darlings
to college to become “learned”. Things that are easy to understand
don’t require a lot of teaching. Only poorly conceived things require
the explanations of the stupid ones who reside in Ivory Towers. —
NoEinstein —
The Principle of Equivalence Explained
I will show that it is mathematically functional and conceptually
wrong.
Begin quote
"Mass is defined by the resistance that a body opposes to its
acceleration (inert mass). It is also measured by the weight of the
body (heavy mass). That these two radically different definitions lead
to the same value for the mass of a body is, in itself, an astonishing
fact." End quote
Albert Einstein
Rhetorical Questions:
Why did Einstein, and why do most contemporary physicists, consider
this equivalence astonishing? Why do they consider inert mass and
gravitational mass, as "radically different definitions"? Why has the
equivalence been invoked as an unexplained principle? Where all that
is required is an explanation in words, for why "gravitational" mass,
is equivalent to inert mass.
Answer to Rhetorical Questions:
The reason is: To rationally explain the equivalence requires a
precise use of words, which requires in turn, more energy intensive
thought, than we have been willing to invest. We have been content to
rely on the convenient "least action" consistent mathematics. Its
quantitative effectiveness in a "least action" [1] universe, provides
us a pragmatic capability, far beyond an immediate necessity for the
rational comprehension of what it means.
Isaac Newton wrote, "For I here design only to give a mathematical
notion of these forces, without considering their physical causes and
seats." He continued with, " ... the reader is not to imagine that ...
I define the ... causes or the physical reasons ... thereof ... or
that I attribute forces, in a true and physical sense, to centers
(which are only mathematical points) when at any time I happen to
speak of centers as attracting or as embued with attractive
powers." (Principia)
Indeed, to my knowledge, other than my work [1a], no one has since,
even addressed the question of "why" the mathematics describes the
universe so well, remaining content instead, to use the effective
"least action" consistent mathematics, and leave the question
unanswered. Consequently, humanity at large has come to believe that
the mathematics is a "crystal ball" that "mysteriously" reveals the
secrets of the (least action) universe.
As an accepted "justified" consequence, the theoretical physicist
mathematician professes a great disdain for words. The academic
humanist, who thinks in words, has assumed a defacto, lowered
intellectual status, or academic caste, and accepts the theoretical
physicist's "word" interpretations for the mathematical models, with
an intimidated silence. The academic humanist is tolerated and
forgiven, and the theoretical physicist mathematician is considered a
specially gifted, "authoritative" genius. A comparative position many
theoretical physicist mathematicians have come to accept as deserved.
The application of the "least action" consistent mathematics, to our
"least action" universe, allows the theoretical physicist
mathematician's imprecise use of words, to provide a quantitative
illusion for a precise conceptual understanding, that is however, only
"attributed" to the theoretical physicist mathematician. His/her
disdain for words can be appreciated when one is introduced to the
bizarre ideas generated by the nonetheless quantitatively effective,
least action mathematical models. To see this, we need not review in
this post, the more esoteric and incomprehensible notions spawned from
the least action dependent, general relativity, and the least action
dependent, quantum mechanics.
We can understand why the so called gravitational mass is equivalent
to inert mass by requiring a higher standard of precision for our
mathematical word definitions. For example: I will show that the
reason the increased or decreased inertia, exactly matches the "so
called" gravitational force is: "Inertia" and "force" are each,
sensory properties of the universe that we measure, quantify, and
"feel". The quantity "inert mass" is generally (loosely) regarded as
a measure of "the amount of matter." This "amount of matter" is
quantified in mass units that represent "resistance", also a property
of matter that we "feel".
We can leave it at that, just as though what we feel and call
gravitational force is fundamental, because inert mass (resistance)
is conserved locally (with respect to surface planet objects) in the
least action universe. Consequently we presumptively assign the
conservation of surface planet, inert object mass (resistance), to the
celestial least action universe, where its (inert mass's) anonymous
operation, as ranged mathematical points within Kepler's least action,
law of areas, allows us to define the ranged mathematical points in
the celestial least action universe in units that are proportional to
what we, as planet surface inertial object's, feel and measure as
resistance [2],[5]. From here we carry the assumption that our feel of
force (as living planet surface inertial objects) quantified in planet
surface units of accelerated inert mass, is the cause of the least
action order that we observe as ranged mathematical points, in the
celestial least action universe [3],[5].
We can carry this further as Albert Einstein did, again, just as
though what we feel and measure (as living planet surface, inertial
objects), is fundamental, by declaring that inert mass and so called
gravitational mass are the same, as a matter of convenient,
mathematically explained principle. Where gravity (the imprecise and
erroneous, overly generalized definition of what we feel and measure,
as living, planet surface inertial objects), is a consequence of the
ranged mathematical points, now representing a curvature of spacetime,
in a least action universe, which spacetime, least action ranged
mathematical point curvature, is nonetheless, a consequence of inert
mass (what we feel and measure quantitatively, as living planet
surface inertial objects), in units that represent resistance (what
we measure and feel).
Either approach assumes that our feel of force, as living planet
surface inertial objects, quantified in units of accelerated,
conserved, inert mass (resistance), is the cause of the least action
order that we observe as ranged mathematical points in the celestial
least action universe.
Or, we can avail ourselves of the increased knowledge (that was not
available to Isaac Newton), that we have gained in the last 350 years,
and "precisely define the physical cause" of what we "feel". Recall
that "Inertia" and "force" and "resistance", are each properties of
the universe that we "feel". To answer the question then _requires_
that we define precisely what it is that we feel.
Inert mass represents the "magnitude of the intrinsic cumulative
atomic resistance" that we measure and feel (as living, planet surface
inertial objects), but it does not tell us the "physical cause of"
what we measure and feel [7]. Rather, we have continued to assume,
that the least action order that we observe in the universe, is
"caused by" what we measure and feel. This, even as it was initially
disclaimed by Isaac Newton on the basis of his knowledge at the time,
and even as we have since, increased our knowledge, which enables us
to define the precise "physical cause" today.
oOo
I say:
If mass is the quantitative measure of the conserved cumulative
resistance of a planet surface, inertial object's atoms (that we
measure and feel), and if we are living, planet surface inertial
objects; Then what we measure and feel, and call gravitational force,
is the accelerated, conserved, cumulative resistance of a planet
surface inertial object's atoms. This includes the atoms that make up
our bodies and the atoms in the bowling ball that we lift.
This defines inert mass in hard objective (quantitative) terms of
"what" we feel, and compare and measure on the balance scale [7a], and
call weight. The comparative, conserved, cumulative resistance of a
planet surface inertial object's atoms. Here, I have defined "inert
mass" (what we measure and feel) precisely, prior to generalizing it
(inert mass) to all "bodies" in the universe, on the strength of its
(inert mass's) anonymous operation [7b] , as ranged mathematical
points, along least action, celestial trajectories.
This definition explains why Newton's third law works with respect to
the conserved interaction between planet surface inertial objects, in
units of resistance called inert mass. The comparative measure, of the
conserved cumulative resistance, of a planet surface inertial object's
atoms.
Where the cumulative resistance of ANY inertial object's atoms (like
some planets, some moons, and stars, when viewed in terms of GR) may,
or may not be, more or less than the sum of a theoretical composition
of discrete atoms. In fact the state of matter at the cores of stars
and some planets and moons, may not be the same state of matter we
find at the planet surface [4], [5].
However, in the case of objects composed of pure elements, where each
and every atom is directly proportional to a single, common, inert
mass, the total mass magnitude of the object, provides us a straight
forward means to calculate the number of atoms within the object [6].
This is also true for the molecules of objects of pure compounds.
Either of these cases show that the conserved "inert mass" of the
surface planet object "pretty near" represents the conserved,
cumulative resistance of that object's atoms. This is a fundamental
aspect of the science of chemistry.
Where we are attracted to the Earth and where we feel and measure the
conserved cumulative resistance of our planet surface atoms in units
of inert mass, and the conserved cumulative resistance of a planet
surface inertial object's atoms that we lift, in units of inert mass,
does not show that an equal and opposite attractive force exists
between our conserved inert mass (the conserved cumulative resistance
of planet surface atoms) and the Earth's conserved inert mass (the ...
read more »
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained
- From: johnreed
- Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained
- From: Uncle Al
- Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained
- References:
- The Principle of Equivalence Explained
- From: johnlawrencereedjr
- The Principle of Equivalence Explained
- Prev by Date: The scratches that woke the rock...
- Next by Date: PHYSICAL REVIEW FOCUS 8 June 2008 http://focus.aps.org/
- Previous by thread: Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained
- Next by thread: Re: The Principle of Equivalence Explained
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
