I am not a part of any club or guys.
Yes, you are, you just don't realize it.
I would not claim something as such if I did not believe I had presented overwhelming evidence.
Cool. Let's just say there's plenty of reason to believe your judgment is off.
Anyway this thread is about what is mass? Do you have any personal ideas of what mass is ?
Interesting that except for answering this vague and general question, you haven't bothered to address it or clarify it at all in this thread.
That's a key to understanding why things have gone wrong here.
Most unfortunately, your original question *IS* interesting-as I'll get to in a minute-but you've studiously avoided the interesting part. Sad!
I would argue mass as kg is the measurement on a set of scales that is equal to the attractive force it is undergoing while at rest in an inertia reference frame?
The scales are only useful when the other side of the balance contains objects of KNOWN MASS.
This demonstrates you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how scales operate.
Which of course throws open the question, "if he doesn't understand what a scale is, how can we even try to explain to him what he's asking about?"...along with, "Sounds like he knows this, but his intent is merely to troll."
Nice misdirection though. What everyone here is assuming is that that misdirection is intentional. Go ahead. Prove us wrong.
Your weight, is the force two things collide at, F=ma² . Acceleration being involved in Newtons equation of force where as rest mass the object is still under acceleration from the force of g, but at rest due to the ground pushes back. The inertia of the object , the resistance to motion/acceleration, is the same thing as the objects mass when at rest.
I think mass=charge(S)=Newtons of force=gravitational magnitude
This is where everyone starts laughing because you've managed to jump all the way from a copy and paste of a valid definition of weight, to the entirely irrelevant discussion of "charge."
At this point you get an "F" on your homework because you've failed to show your work.
A body can be a variant in mass but it can not be a variant in energy of the entropy of the body?
...and another astounding leap! Your "overwhelming evidence" here is solely based on your complete misunderstanding of how scales work.
No, mass is not variant. At all.
Now you've gone off into the weeds here by bringing in terms you've heard like "rest mass" and hinting at the very interesting topic of "dynamical mass" while proving you have no idea what any of that means.
I recommend (actually to all of you, as I found it fascinating) a paper by L.B. Okun entitled "The Concept of Mass in the Einstein Year" which pretty much talks about what you're trying to get at in quite a bit of detail.
Surprise: Charge has nothing to do with it (although the paper does mention charge in the process of explaining how it is cancelled out in the relevant equations).
If I am misunderstanding something here, please correct me.
So, there you go!
Seriously, your problem here is that you give *great* examples of how little you know and then pretend you've got the knowledge to up-end 3000 years of physics.
It's not pretty. Gets people upset too.
You might try humility for a change.
You walk into the room with your pencil in your hand, you see somebody naked and you say, "Who is that man?"