Modified 12/27/1999, 12/28/1999, 12/29/1999,12/30/1999,01/03/2000

Modified 03/21/2000

Posted on alt.sci.physics newsgroups

Gravity 1.1 © 1999 johnreed

For the purpose of this paper I categorize the mass of local objects into three broad categories.

1) The manner local object mass interacts with the attractor at Earth.

2) The manner local object mass interacts with other local object mass.

3) The manner mankind views these interactions.

Consider Category 1. Except perhaps for extreme cases, which we presently cannot experimentally verify, any object in orbit around the Earth travels at a velocity that depends only on its distance from a common fixed point within the Earth. A small object, and a large object, if, in equivalent stable orbits about the Earth, with respect to distance, will travel at equal velocity. Given equal distance and equal time, within the present limits of the precision available to us, all locally measured objects free fall at the same rate. All locally measured objects have the same escape velocity, regardless of their respective relative magnitudes. All three of these Earth attractor controlling parameters are the consequence of the same principle. All three properties provide us the measure of a quantity we call mass.

Temporarily discounting the assumptive, 'universal' generalization, which is Newton's third law, it is apparent, that mass as we have defined it, is insignificant with respect to the measurable controlling parameters of the attractor field at Earth. Even if we do not temporarily discount the third law here, to the limited extent that we can determine by experiment, this statement remains true.

Consider Category 2. In the second case, it is clear that we must apply more effort or increased energy to larger masses, in order to lift the masses against the accelerative attractor which we feel and call Newtonian gravity. While the escape velocity is constant across mass magnitudes, the acceleration we must apply to attain that velocity, requires increased energy. When we reverse the direction of travel, as in (free fall), we note that an increased mass hits the ground with greater energy. Once we have placed a satellite in orbit, the amount of energy we must use to modify that orbit varies according to the momentum of the satellite. These three processes are also the consequence of the same principle.

We see that inertial mass is a significant quantity, with respect to mankind.

It is trivial to explain that the parameters in Case 1 are the consequence of the same principle. It is also trivial to explain that the parameters in Case 2 are the consequence of the same principle. It is however, rather complex to explain that the controlling parameters in Cases 1 and 2 are the consequence of the same principle. So complex in fact, that it has never been simply done. Instead, unless I am mistaken, we have taken an aspect of the insignificance of mass, with regard to the attractor at Earth, and quantitatively generalized mass (by using this aspect), to all the matter in the universe, proportionally applying the locally measured magnitudes of that mass. This is kinematically effective due to the (common), similar action trajectories in all stable systems (I loosely refer to these action trajectories as 'conic sections in the sky'). Collaterally we justify this approach with the Principle of Equivalence, Newton's third law and the generalization for a universal attraction between all objects in the universe.

An ideal, but simplistic case for the conservation of momentum as put forward by Newton, can be an inelastic collision between two objects in a free and unencumbered space. Such a space does not appear to exist in the neighborhood of stable systems. Rather, such a space is implicit in what may now, be referred to as 'flat' Euclidean space. A space with no friction and no field influence that might affect the collision result. We have approximated this idealized space with experiments that roughly neutralize the attractor at Earth. These experiments owe their success to the PoE. It follows that it is the Earth attractor that physically enables mass to be isolated as a quantity, although in principle. we can apply the concept to inertial mass in general.

Our mathematics feeds on this approach and is operationally effective with regard to the kinematics of the process, due to the universal time-space constraints that accompany stable systems in general. A reasonable question exists as to the accuracy of the mathematics with regard to the dynamics of the process. This question however, is not due to any flaw in the mathematics, but rather, to the unproved assumptions we bring to the mathematics.

What do we really mean when we say "mass", or "amount of matter"? Consider Newton's law: F=ma. What does [m] represent in terms of matter units? The most fundamental measurable (at least in principle) matter unit with respect to the Earth attractor, is an atom. But the quantity mg (ma at Earth surface) or ma at specific r (distance from Earth center) is the resistance of the matter unit itself, since under these conditions a and/or g divide out. However. when we have one atom, the measure in terms of resistance with regard to the Earth attractor, varies, because the atoms of different elements have different mass. The logical consequence of this is that F=ma is only valid with regard to inertial mass. Inertial mass results from an atom or aggregate of atoms in motion.

With a stable system attractor that acts on a quantity in a consistent manner, that consistency allows for the measure of the resistance of a separate quantity, that is without influence with respect to the attractor. Such an attractor arises from a phenomena that does not influence the measured quantity. Such a measure of resistance does not provide the magnitude for the unit sum, of the qualifying quantity (the attracted quantity that is equally acted upon). If we call the qualifying quantity an atom, an atom of aluminum will have less resistance to the attractor than an atom of lead. To equalize the resistance to the Earth attractor for an aggregate of each of these elements, we must increase the number of qualifying units of Aluminum. Therefore, the equivalence between the attractor focus and the quantification of that focus as mass, is at least inconclusive and probably an error.

In Cases 1 and 2, our definition for mass and its quantification is made possible by the attractor at the Earth. On the face, what we call the gravitational force appears to depend on the total amount of inertial mass in a body, and this is the classical mainstream definition for amount of matter. But this is a subjective focus for gravity. As noted in Case 2 the focus of gravity appears to be on an object's inertial mass when man must lift the object. However, by Case 1, and the subsequent argument I've included above, the focus on the inertial mass does not apply to the attractor field itself. Therefore F=ma cannot apply to that field as a matter of law, without great likelihood of error.

With respect to the Earth attractor, mass as defined above, allows the focus of gravity to shift to each individual atom that makes up an entire object. Instead of a focus on an object's inertial mass, the Earth attractor's focus is on each individual atom of the inertial mass.

The difference in the two views may seem trivial or even pointless at first thought, but each premise leads to a dramatically different conclusion. The atomic focus view offers a rational, non contradictory, explanation for the insignificance of the amount of matter in an object, in orbit, escape velocity, or in free fall. It explains everything we immediately see and feel, and is consistent with all known experimental results, and it leads to a whole unified field.

It explains the Principle of Equivalence:

1) If gravity acts singly, on each of an objects constituent parts, rather than on its aggregate (inertial) mass, the constituent parts, each, will have the same escape velocity, and the same rate of free fall, whether they are separate parts, or travel as an aggregate of those parts.

2) By the same argument, any mass can occupy any orbit because the focus of the Earth attractor is on each single atom. In order to maintain a stable orbit a specific velocity is required for each atom that depends on distance alone. An immediate parallel with the analogue idea of frequency and wavelength is noted.

Author's note

There are several parts to this paper. The succeeding parts depend on the reasoning here. If no fatal flaws exist herein… or, if such flaws exist and no one bothers to point them out, part two will follow.

This paper has been posted previously. This re-post has been edited in an attempt to eliminate flaws previously noted by Joe Fischer and to improve the argument flow. Related material can be found at

http://members.aol.com/randamajor.

Errata

The Newton paradigm set gravity as a function of mass. Any mass, no matter how small must have a gravitational attraction toward all other masses in the universe. Why do we believe this? Actually we believe this for the same reason people believed the Earth was flat long ago. We feel a pull toward the Earth. Consequently there can be no other side to the Earth, lest we fall off. Its hell below and heaven above, and that's that. A self evident fact if ever there was one. So it is today. We feel an attraction and we call it gravity. It is a one way phenomena that only attracts. A self evident fact if ever there was one. And since it only attracts, it always attracts, even over immense distances. These rather subjective interpretations rest on our feel of being attracted to the Earth.

my regards,

johnreed