On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:16:21 -0700 (PDT), johnreed
<
thejohnlreed@gmail.com> wrote:
The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics
Modified October 31, 2009, June 8, 2010, January 11, 2011
March 21, 2011
John Lawrence Reed, Jr.
Section 18b
The Subjective Aspect of Mass
I have argued that with respect to the kinematics of natural stable
physical systems stability in the field requires efficient cyclic
motion.
Is a static system (without motion (cyclic or otherwise) non-stable?
I have also argued that the mathematics describes the stable
universe well because the mathematics easily represents the efficient
(least action) properties of stable physical systems.
I have shown that Isaac Newton defined celestial centripetal force in
units proportional to planet (and moon) surface object mass, using (1)
the least action property of a circular orbit, as it applied to the
least action property of Kepler's Law of Areas[*] and (2) that the
Force we apply [F] is equal and opposite [F=mg] to the resistance we >encounter [mg] and/or [ma], at any location in space [g]. This, to
generalize his notion for a universal gravitational force based on the >resistance we work against weight [mg] and the conservation[**] of
planet surface object mass [m] (also resistance).
I have shown the connection between Kepler's laws and least action
motion, where surface planet object mass is independent of the
celestial frame.
Is there a non-object mass?
What precisely is a "surface planet object mass"? Do you mean a
planet's mass? If that's what you mean, please de-jargonize before
expecting me to read further - lol.
Why would anyone expect a mass ("surface planet object mass") to be
dependent on a "celestial frame" (positions of stars?).
...
---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)