Recent exchanges between Uncle Al and johnreed

Subject:	Recent exchanges between Uncle Al and johnreed
Date:	Thu, 3 Dec 2009 13:25:31 -0800 (PST)

thejohnlreed wrote:
[snip 390 lines of crap total]
> Inert mass represents the conserved "magnitude of the intrinsic
> cumulative atomic resistance" that we measure and feel (as living,
> planet surface inert objects)
> 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].
1) Gravitational or inertial mass? Passive or active mass?
Jr writes>
What=E2=80=99s with you wartz? Mass is a resistance. It is conserved. It
represents a cumulative resistance of atoms. You can base its
definition on the way you sense and measure it and continue your
subjective generalized centrist belief system. It is clear that you
are dull and thick headed.
2) Isotopes.
Jr writes>
How many times do I have to explain the same simple ideas wartz? I
have attached my prior response to this below.
3) Binding energy mass equivalence re amorphous and metallic
selenium; graphite, diamond, fullerenes.
Jr writes>
Ditto.
4) Temperature mass equivalence.
Jr writes>
More dirt clods wartz? All calculations require a noted temp and
pressure.
5) Finite accuracy and precision of measurement.
jr writes>
Using the equation [F=3DnNmg] where [n=3Dmoles], [N=3DAvogodros Number] and
[mg=3Dthe relative weight of a single atom of the =E2=80=9Cpure=E2=80=9D co=
mpounds], we
can take a reaction that goes all the way to the right, like NaOH +
HCl --=EF=83=A0 NaCl + [H2]O, and measure a precise number of atoms in term=
s
of mass, such that we can drink the end product.
6) idiot
> This is also true for the molecules of objects of pure compounds.
Hey stooopid - What is the width at half-height of mass spectrograph
lines?
idiot^2
> Are ya gonna post an equation? One equation?
> idiot
jr writes>
Once I determined that mass (weight, inertia, momentum and gravity)
were quantities that we feel as resistance, I became careful to avoid
using the stable system convenient least action consistent universe
motion as the sole vehicle that connected my planet surface conserved
quantities to the celestial universe. Eventually I learned that all
of
our present physical mathematical descriptive models used the least
action consistent aspect of the mathematics as an unspoken and
unrecognized basis for the veracity of the mathematics.. So it took
me
awhile to discover a least action consistent equation to apply as a
support for my hypothesis that what we feel and call gravity [mg]
is the cumulative resistance of atoms. I have provided that equation
as a support for my conceptually clear articulated verbal explanation
that the Earth attractor acts on atoms and not on mass. First as a
footnote in Section 5 and second as a major point in Section 6. This
as a concession to those who do not know why the mathematics
represents the universe so well. You don=E2=80=99t seem to retain anything
from one post to another wartz. Why pretend to read something that,
unless you are senile, you have not read? Here is the equation that
converts the conserved quantity that we feel and call mass, to a
number of atoms wrt a pure element.:
[F =3D mg =3D nN[mg]]
Where [nN] is the product of a number of moles and Avogadro =E2=80=99s numb=
er
and [mg] is the atomic weight of a single atom.
I put forward this equation not as a superior method to account for
our subjective effort in response to a resistance (mass) but as a
quantitative means to show that conserved mass is pretty near
equivalent to a precise number of atoms. And that what we =E2=80=9Cfeel=E2=
=80=9D
mass,
is the conserved cumulative resistance of those atoms. Not a
universal gravitational force.
johnreed

jr writes>
Angular mass momentum is the spin analog of Newton=E2=80=99s first law. We
start an object spinning in free (unencumbered) space and it will
continue to spin at uniform velocity, perhaps forever. We start an
object moving rectilinearly in free space and it will continue to
uniformly move, perhaps forever. We have angular and linear momentum.
Pretty elementary stuff so far, jerk.
So my question was =E2=80=9CHow do we get from the first law single body
inertia angular momentum to a two body orbital angular momentum=E2=80=9D?
Obviously something must support such a =E2=80=9Cjump=E2=80=9D.
I did not detail this subject in Section 4 but I will include it
shortly. Meanwhile:
I will exert the effort now to re-explain Section 4 in terms of
angular momentum, which it subsumes in terms of Kepler=E2=80=99s law of are=
as
and Newton=E2=80=99s uniform motion describing a perfectly circular orbit.
Recall that Newton used a perfect circle and uniform motion as the
basis for the derivation. A 2D perfect circle in a uniform spinning
motion is the 2D kinematic equivalent to a 3D solid uniformly
spinning
sphere. Recall that Newton used Kepler=E2=80=99s least action consistent la=
w
of areas to carry his supposition for a mass described mathematical
argument for centripetal force to the entire universe as the means to
generalize his notion of gravity as the cause of the least action
order we observe in the celestial least action universe. Kepler=E2=80=99s l=
aw
of areas is the celestial orbit least action consistent kinematic
analog of the uniform spinning circle and the kinematic properties of
the spinning sphere. The common kinematic connection is angular
velocity, which is an artifact of the spinning circle and spinning
sphere, and is met by the time controlled celestial least action
orbit. These are least action consistent properties.
I asked, =E2=80=9CSo how do we get planet surface mass into the situation=
=E2=80=9D?
Well we just multiply two sides of a least action consistent equation
by unity in the form of [m/m]. We hitchhike. The least action
consistent angular velocity picked us up and became least action
consistent angular momentum. Our least action consistent mathematics
carried our conserved planet surface object mass as an independent in
the least action celestial orbit. And with that we defined the
universe in terms of the force we had to exert to duplicate the least
action events.
Its just too much effort to take this any further as a mere reply to
a
comment to a post. I will include =E2=80=9Cangular momentum=E2=80=9D by nam=
e in
Section 4. Meanwhile you would do well by reading that section.
johnreed

thejohnlreed wrote:
[snip crap]
> Angular Momentum
> Angular mass momentum is the spin analog of Newton=E2=80=99s first law. W=
e
> start an object spinning in free (unencumbered) space and it will
> continue to spin at uniform velocity, perhaps forever. We start an
> object moving rectilinearly in free space and it will continue to
> uniformly move, perhaps forever. We have angular and linear momentum.
How do you know either one is moving? Is either one moving? Explain
the angular momentum of circularly polarized light given that photons
have zero rest mass.

jr writes> I am writing here about the origin of angular momentum in
science. When we get that right we can apply it to atomic physics.
Which will also require major modifications and which I will get to if
I live long enough. . Don=E2=80=99t concern yourself with the zero rest mas=
s
of photons. If photons did exist they could not be at rest. A quanta
of energy tied to a frequency of EMR that we measure through photo
multipliers as electron detection. Calling it quanta does not insure
its existence as a unit. The question:=E2=80=9D is either one moving=E2=80=
=9D is
better formed as =E2=80=9Cdoes either one exist?=E2=80=9D We can=E2=80=99t =
even locate an
electron inside the atom. We can detect its emission and absorption
wrt to the atom. What happens to an electron emitted into the
atmosphere? Into space? What happens to an electron when absorbed by
an atom? Talk to me about EMR not about your sensory quantity light.

[snip more crap]
> Section 4 in this series subsumes angular momentum in terms of
> Kepler=E2=80=99s law of areas,
[snip still more crap]
Electrons have spin-1/2: what is moving? Aluminum-27 has spin 5/2+,
scandium-45 has spin 7/2-, tantalum-190m has spin 9-, hafnium-178m2
has spin 16+, hafnium-177m2 has spin 37/2-. What is sweeping out
area?
jr writes>
The absorbed electron does not maintain its integrity inside the atom.
So applying a value for electron spin inside the atom separate and
distinct from the atom itself is in error. Atomic structure cannot be
modeled after our planet orbits (a false idea but permanently
enshrined by quantum physics ie, instead of an orbiting electron we
have the probability of finding the orbiting electron). Same error
with a modified least action consistent mathematical approach. Try
building the atomic structure consistent with electromagnetic
structures. Forget your subjective feel of force as meaningful to
anything but yourself.
> Consequently, the idea for
> angular momentum as a causal descriptor for celestial orbital motion,
> is kinematically consistent with the celestial angular time controlled
> velocity, and the conserved but celestial velocity independent, planet
> surface object mass. Here angular orbital momentum does not speak to a
> controlling mass, much less a proportional to planet surface object,
> controlling mass.
[snip rest of crap]
idiot
jr writes> You are starting to sound like Rumsfeld and Cheney. I hope
you don=E2=80=99t further digress to Bush.
Have a good time,
johnreed