johnreed Catch 22 - January 10, 2007

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