Aristotle

Aristotle

Through Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion, right up until today, standard mathematical physics carries the B.C. misconceptions of Aristotle...........

Scalar quantities have magnitude. Vector quantities have magnitude and direction. At junior school we teach mass as a scalar quantity. A quantity of mass has magnitude but not direction.

Mathematical physics is based upon mass existing as two types of mass that measure the same. One type of mass within mass is called inertial mass. The other type of mass within mass being known as gravitational mass.

These two forms of mass within mass are not distinguishable from each other through measurement.

The original junior school conflict is both inertial mass and gravitational mass move mass into the realm of being a vector quantity.

Sir Isaac Newton explicitly stated how a vector could emanate from the earth's mass to cause gravity was beyond his faculties. The modern educational idea has become the earth's mass initiates a descent vector into a union of space and time. This union was originally developed as concept by several imaginative science fiction aficionados (Poe and Clarke). Mathematical physicists pick up on it from there.

In the case of an inertial resistance vector born out of scalar mass, this traces back to the B.C. period. Aristotle's ideas were force has to be applied for motion to continue. And more massive objects descend to earth at a greater rate. Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton's laws are supplied by modern schoolteachers as deliverance from these Aristotelian misconceptions.........

Galileo, or Galileo's era, deduced that a quality inherent of matter called 'inertia' was the reason a motion continued. This quality of matter both resisted a change of a state of motion and was the reason a motion perseveres.

Before Galileo the centuries already had the contrary explanation to Aristotle's various ideas of how an applied force continued to be applied beyond actual contact. This pre Galilean answer was called impetus (link) by proclaimers. A motion supplied to an object by a force continues beyond the application of the force was what Frenchman Jean Buridan stated two centuries before the life of Galileo and fifteen centuries after the life of Aristotle.

Defined as the product of mass and velocity, by Sir Isaac Newton's time Buridan's impetus had become known as 'momentum'.

Sir Isaac analytically proved that momentum is conserved when objects collide. He did this with a cradle of suspended balls (link).

Courtesy of Galileo, what Sir Isaac failed to understand is the simple arithmetical base the conservation of the momentum of collided objects resides upon. Which is.....

**Arithmetically the product of mass and velocity is uniform.**

For modern schoolteachers, when one number represents a mass quantity and another number represents the magnitude of the velocity vector of that mass, there is only one answer when those two numbers are multiplied together.

Newton's cradle was dependent upon this arithmetical / vector fact. Sir Isaac's mind left the velocity component of momentum out of momentum and then mistakenly went along with Galileo and called this simple fact of arithmetic "inertial mass".

Beyond Galileo's life and without inclusion of the two words, 'inertial mass' has been considered by educational bureaucracies to be contained within Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion. That first law.........

*"Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed."*

Alternatively Sir Isaac Newton's first law is referred to as the 'law of inertia'. Dramatic educational progress will occur when modern schoolteachers smarten up to the fact that neither 'inertia' or 'inertial mass' are worded into the readout of Sir Isaac's first law of motion. And that neither 'inertia' or 'inertial mass' are needed to explain any facet of motion.

What's needed is an understanding that arithmetically momentum is uniform / conserved. And Sir Isaac Newton's second and third laws.

Reading Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion as stated = the product of mass and velocity with his second law tacked on. Or reworded with Sir Isaac's second law left off the end and designating 'the perseverance of a state of rest' to be an absence of momentum change, Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion reads.......

*"In its direction of travel, the product of a body's mass and velocity is uniformly conserved."*

Mass x velocity replaces the mechanically undefined 'perseveres' and Sir Isaac Newton's second law is left to be that law.

Importantly, when educational bureaucrats set educational standards, the inclusion of 'momentum' and the exclusion of the unmentioned 'inertial mass' are both critical. If you are currently studying junior school physics, in clear and concise terms, that's Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion. The product of velocity and quantity = uniform motion. Not inertial mass = uniform motion as your school teacher implies when he or she teaches you Sir Isaac's first law of motion.

The resistance to a change of state of free momentum

**only**comes to be when an external force is applied. The resistance is explained simply by Sir Isaac Newton's third law.

Below the larger mass is stationary relative to the earth. The lack of motion relative to the earth is due to the absence of an applied force. Not the fact of its 5 kilograms as is currently implied by a school teacher through the appearance of the word 'perseveres' in Newton's first law of motion.

When and if geniuses come to understand that resistance to change of motion originates at impact, there is only one type of mass.

Why the quantity magnitude of a descending body is irrelevant to its rate of descent is something Aristotle was not chronologically positioned to assess......

If Sir Isaac's second law is a legitimate weight measuring tool, that is inarguable. What directly follows is.....

As Sir Isaac's second law stands, justifying its use as a weight measuring tool is currently absent from junior school curricula. Relative to a direction of descent, weight is mass with zero change of velocity. Sir Isaac's second law specifies a force causes mass to accelerate. If the second law is a legitimate weight measuring tool, weight needs definition that reflects velocity change.

Why the quantity magnitude of a descending body is irrelevant to its rate of descent is something Aristotle was not chronologically positioned to assess......

**1/ Weight magnitude on earth is a direct factor of the magnitude of the earth's inverse square law.**If Sir Isaac's second law is a legitimate weight measuring tool, that is inarguable. What directly follows is.....

**2/ Free fall rate towards the earth is a direct factor of the magnitude of the earth's inverse square law.**As Sir Isaac's second law stands, justifying its use as a weight measuring tool is currently absent from junior school curricula. Relative to a direction of descent, weight is mass with zero change of velocity. Sir Isaac's second law specifies a force causes mass to accelerate. If the second law is a legitimate weight measuring tool, weight needs definition that reflects velocity change.

If that definition of weight is correct, it says a potential rate of acceleration causes force (weight). And that an invented force (called gravity) does

Outside Newton's second law........

If that definition of weight is correct, it says a potential rate of acceleration causes force (weight). And that an invented force (called gravity) does

**not**cause weight.Outside Newton's second law........

As the astronaut says back to earth, Mister Galileo was correct. The reason Galileo was correct is

**both the feather and the hammer are intrinsically weightless.**

To a greater degree, the dropping of a helium balloon on the moon as well would have demonstrated to earth classroom's that weight is not mass. Just as Galileo, didn't, the astronaut involved has not had a clear understanding of the difference between mass and weight.

Succinctly, the reason of the identical descent rates is the

**magnitude**of the moon's inverse square law is regionally

**identical**for the descent of any mass magnitude in that region. Not mass existing in two vector forms that are mathematically canceling each other out inside mass.

Earlier Galileo had done the experiment with rolling balls.

Until two types of vector mass within scalar mass actually becomes apparent, promoting other theories or equations based on mass = mass is the earth waiting for its mathematical scientists to wake up to the possibility that they could be stupidly wrong about the nature of the universe.

Successful predictions made from theories based on unsound foundations means there is something wrong somewhere. In the Mercury perihelion advance scenario, clearly the intent has been to get numbers to fit observations. With the original observation of other star light deviating as it passes the sun, neither the motion of the sun or observed stars was taken into account over a six month period.

It would be rational if the course of star light was altered as it passes by another star. That does not mean there is such a thing as space time continuum. Also does not mean collected data cannot be interpreted in a prejudicial manner to fit theories. Or that other explanations of the collected data should not be considered.

Albert Einstein's statement on the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass.......

Indicating that the science of Albert Einstein included enchanting minions, after the masses are cancelled out his statement says that gravity is an acceleration.

What would come next for future mathematical physicists is assessing where Einstein's theories are worth more than the paper they were written on. In general Albert Einstein gave genius mathematical physicists new equations to fool around with. The central point being, whether old or new, equations give answers that may be either useful or useless. Equations are not answers in themselves.

For future junior classroom standards, the task of educational bureaucracy would be releasing motion from the entrails of Aristotle's mind. Preferably as the vaccine arrives.

It would be rational if the course of star light was altered as it passes by another star. That does not mean there is such a thing as space time continuum. Also does not mean collected data cannot be interpreted in a prejudicial manner to fit theories. Or that other explanations of the collected data should not be considered.

Albert Einstein's statement on the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass.......

*A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:**(Inertial mass) . (Acceleration) = (Intensity of the gravitational field) . (Gravitational mass).**It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body. Albert Einstein*Indicating that the science of Albert Einstein included enchanting minions, after the masses are cancelled out his statement says that gravity is an acceleration.

What would come next for future mathematical physicists is assessing where Einstein's theories are worth more than the paper they were written on. In general Albert Einstein gave genius mathematical physicists new equations to fool around with. The central point being, whether old or new, equations give answers that may be either useful or useless. Equations are not answers in themselves.

For future junior classroom standards, the task of educational bureaucracy would be releasing motion from the entrails of Aristotle's mind. Preferably as the vaccine arrives.