johnreed Catch 22 - January 10, 2007

from johnreed take 1A - Parts 3 & 4 - October 18, 2006

John Lawrence Reed, Jr.

Isaac Newton defined centripetal force in terms of his second and third

law, to act at a distance, by setting his first law object on an

imaginary circular path of motion, at a constant orbital speed. As we

did with Ptolemy, we find here a perfect circle and perfect motion. The

construct was built in the following manner: Newton allowed the moving

inertial 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 acts on mass and not on the atom itself. [2]

In fact, the freefall, orbit velocity, and escape velocity,

experimental data suggest that inertial mass "does not" enter into

the earth attractor (read gravity) mathematics, outside of the effect

of surface planet inertial mass objects on other surface planet

inertial mass objects, which we qualify as. "We are certainly not to

relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain

fictions of our own devising." (Principia) However, these results

have continued to center on the incorrectly interpreted freefall 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, isolated quantitatively in terms of our 'inertial

mass', is the cause of the least action, time controlled, planet

orbits, as defined by Isaac Newton; or the least action planet orbits

are the reason we can isolate the emergent quantity "inertial

mass" on the balance scale; and our tactile sense of attraction to

the earth (gravity), which we feel as resistance, is caused by the

earth attractor (read gravity) action on our constituent atoms, holding

us to the earth's surface. In other words, mass causes 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

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 constraints of a least action

(least time), controlled principle. Freefall functions within the same

constraint (equal areas in equal times). Whatever the cause of the

shared principle (see take 1D), that 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

earth attractor surface, accelerative action (g) from the mass of the

inertial object (m) on the balance scale, with respect to the "tactile

sense of attraction" we feel as resistance and quantify generally as

gravitational force (gravitational force = 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 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. 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 quantify in terms of our inertial mass, as

weight. Therefore, and as experiment indicates, the earth attractor

acts on our atoms and not on the mass of our atoms.

Einstein's idea that Newton's first law applies to planet orbits

because the planets travel an imaginary curved space-time geodesic,

merely extends Newton's definition of an imaginary perfectly circular,

centripetal force caused, inertial mass (ma) generated view of

planetary motion, by further co-opting the least action planet orbits,

within an extended new age Ptolemaic, mathematical model. While

maintaining our centrist view for a mass generated notion for gravity,

Einstein backed into a more accurate, partially electromagnetic,

mathematical frame. For now, I'll leave it to the reader to contemplate

the idea that the earth attractor acts on our constituent atoms and not

on their mass, and to:

1) consider how well blackholes, curved space-time, and the big bang,

will survive theoretically when it is realized that the earth attractor

acts on our atoms and not on our mass.

2) show that the balance scale measures inertial mass and that,

gravitational "mass" does not exist. This should be easy for those who

consider classical mechanics their strong suit.

3) consider possible reasons for the Pioneer anomalies.

4) consider possible reasons for the Foucalt pendulum anomalies during

total solar eclipses.

5) consider alternatives to dark matter and energy.

Endnotes:

[1] The verbal argument Newton used to connect his inertial mass driven

centripetal force to Kepler's laws is, by my notes here, vague. So far

I have loosely traced it from the balance scale through the pendulum to

Jupiter's moons and the Sun. 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.

Which would be the case if the earth attractor acts on our atoms and

not on our mass. This from old notes. Must re-check the publication. So

Im still working on it in that sense. 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 entertained in another post, shortly.

[2] Should I declare an equivalence principle here? Say, since the

observer cannot tell the difference they are the same. Call it the 2nd

observer dependent equivalence principle? ... uh. No not that. Its more

of an uncertainty... kinda'... except that it can be reduced to an

"either/or" uncertainty. Now we're getting into Boolean mathematical

stuff here. Test both cases. ... well, that leaves only the "or" in

this case. We've certainly tested the hell out of the "either".

[3] Isaac Newton's interpretation of the freefall phenomenon; Albert

Einstein's interpretation of the freefall data; and my interpretation

of that data; lead to entirely different conclusions. I say that

inertial mass does not figure into the earth attractor mathematics,

therefore the earth attractor does not act on inertial mass. 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.

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2007, folks.

Have a good time,

johnreed