Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Concept Of Mass


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#154 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 11:00 AM

The way I see it, the equation F=MA is just another example of how abstract "mathematical" symbols can easily become completely divorced from the essential concepts underlying them, which get forgotten.

 

People look at the "F" and often start looking at it as a "single," self-sufficient representation of something.  They can forget that the "F" is not a simple, uncomplicated thing. because it looks so simple. It's just a simple "F," that's all, and it's so easy to manipulate mathematically that way.  It can easily be seen, mathematically, that M is "simply" F/A, and that A is "simply" F/M.

 

To remind people of this, the equation should really be written as NET F=MA

 

Looked at from a different perspective, F=MA is just circular in character and is just a self-proving tautology.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 02:50 PM.


#155 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2259 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 06:44 PM

A concept of mass must in some way be a measure of inertia - and this has been accepted since Eisntein brought like of it through his intelligent paper in which a mass is actually a concentrated form of energy. What he realized immediately is that an increase of energy actually proportionally increased the mass of the system.

 

This is a local explanation, local explanations tend to be the most logical ones. Mach has his own version, but in many ways it seemed illogical - Not only does all the matter determine the man standing on the moon, He was never able to explain why this should be but what Einstein showed was that this ''contribution'' would be akin to an energy-momentum tensor which too, takes into respect all the systems contributing to the stress energy. But Einstein's theory of inertia being loosely the same thing as inertia, is one of the most best tested fact of physics we know of. It's been tested without fail, in field, and in orbit.

 

Ocean's explanation was ... borderline vapid, the interpretation of the OP topic was something like reading from a 1960 textbook. With Einstein's insight, then further experimental confirmation (which he thought would never happen), dropping the first atom bomb over Hiroshima, it was universally accepted in a much better definition, which stayed with me because of its intrinsic accuracy.

 

''Energy is diffused form of matter, matter is a concentrated form of light;''

 

And there has been no truer sense of the physics than this. Mass does diffuse back to photon energy, antiparticles and particles could be taken evidence that bound energy giving rise to a quantum zoo of particles, may not be so wild.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 14 April 2019 - 08:03 PM.


#156 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 07:47 PM

A concept of mass must in some way be a measure of inertia

 

Formalistically, this may be true, Dubbo.  But, as a conceptual matter, what's your response to this assertion?:

 

 

Same idea with the moon orbiting the earth, where an equilibrium between opposing forces has been reached. As I have noted before, at least two forces must be in play for that to happen:

 

1. The force of earth's gravity, which is "tugging at" the moon, and

 

2.  The opposing force of inertia, which resists, and offsets, this tug. The force of Inertia "tries" (and keeps trying, to all eternity) to keep the moon moving in a straight line, but it is not completely successful in doing so.  All the same, without it, the moon would just drop straight into the earth.

 



#157 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2259 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 08:08 PM

Formalistically, this may be true, Dubbo.  But, as a conceptual matter, what's your response to this assertion?:

 

 

Can you rephrase this? Conceptual threw me off a bit, are you meaning it in the context of the mind?



#158 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 08:13 PM

I'm not conversant in the details of GR, but from what I read, Einstein wanted to eliminate the concept of inertia, which he saw as a "defect," from physics.  These days most physicists agree that his attempt to do so failed.

 

In his appraisals of the theory of relativity Einstein often claimed that the general theory remedied an inherent defect in both Newtonian mechanics and special relativity, namely, the reliance on the principle of inertia, and the corresponding “inertial coordinate systems” for rendering intelligible the laws of physics....

 

[But] general relativity assumes each small region of space and time asymptotically approaches “flatness”, and in these infinitesimal regions the metrical properties are those of special relativity, which we’ve already seen are based epistemologically on the principle of inertia...

 

So, despite Einstein’s hopes, general relativity does not in any way explain or obviate the principle of inertia....No one disputes that the principle of inertia is extremely well-founded in observation.  It is an extremely well-justified postulate – but it is still a postulate. General relativity does not explain inertia, nor does it dispense with the need to organize our spatio-temporal theories on the topology and morphology implicit in the principle of inertia and the associated distinguished coordinate systems.

 

 

https://www.mathpage...88/kmath588.htm

 

I'm just throwing this in before Dubbo starts trying to analyze things with a geometrical interpretation of GR.


Edited by Moronium, 14 April 2019 - 08:44 PM.


#159 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 14 April 2019 - 08:17 PM

Can you rephrase this? Conceptual threw me off a bit, are you meaning it in the context of the mind?

 

Well, yeah, I guess I mean something like that. The orbiting moon "explanation" which I offered does not rely on mathematical symbolism, but instead uses "concepts" like "force," inertia, and gravity.  Those are not tangible things which we can ever directly see--they are mental abstractions from what we see (and then think about), i. e., "concepts."

 

But, more generally speaking, I was trying to distinguish between formal mathematical tautologies and everyday "common sense," I suppose.

 

Having said that, I realize that few, if any, people in this forum recognize the distinction.  Most here seem to presume that mathematics IS the concept, and think that math IS physics.


Edited by Moronium, 14 April 2019 - 09:35 PM.


#160 hazelm

hazelm

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 939 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 08:03 AM

Quote Ocean Breeze:

 

The amount of matter that an object contains is its mass

 

Incidentally, this does not equate matter to mass,

 

My reaction:  Do I see a contradiction?  Or am I just plain dizzy?  hazelm


Edited by hazelm, 15 April 2019 - 08:03 AM.


#161 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Moderators
  • 922 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 10:19 AM

Quote Ocean Breeze:

 

The amount of matter that an object contains is its mass

 

Incidentally, this does not equate matter to mass,

 

My reaction:  Do I see a contradiction?  Or am I just plain dizzy?  hazelm

 

No contradiction, and you are not dizzy either. The distinction can be confusing.

 

Matter is defined as any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.

 

Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter, measured in kilograms. Mass itself may be classified according to the phenomena used to determine it, such as gravitational mass and inertial mass, but nobody has ever found a difference among the results regardless of the phenomena observed.

 

In you delve into particle physics you will find other definitions for mass involving the Higgs boson and the churning sub-atomic particles within protons and neutrons. It depends on how deeply you want to get into the subject.



#162 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 588 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 10:36 AM

If science can't even agree on mass, how is it supposed to agree on time or space or even how much is 5?



#163 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Moderators
  • 922 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 10:51 AM

If science can't even agree on mass, how is it supposed to agree on time or space or even how much is 5?

 

I'm sure you will figure it all out, Ralf. (the part about the five, I mean)



#164 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:02 AM

Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter, measured in kilograms. Mass itself may be classified according to the phenomena used to determine it, such as gravitational mass and inertial mass, but nobody has ever found a difference among the results regardless of the phenomena observed.

 

 

But the first sentence of your link says this, Popeye:

 

Mass is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied.

 

 

It doesn't say anything about matter, or even measuring matter,  there.  But the introduction says this:

 

This article is about the scientific concept. For the substance of which all physical objects consist, see Matter

 

.

Mass "measures" resistance to accelation, not matter, according to these guys (and just about everyone else), scientifically speaking, anyway.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 11:18 AM.


#165 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:16 AM

I've already asked this question:  What doesn't it even mean to say that mass is a "property" of matter? 

 

Locke made a distinction between primary qualities (properties, really) and secondary qualities.

 

For Locke, primary qualities are those properties of an object that are not related by definition to perceivers. The primary qualities are size, shape, motion, number, and solidity. We might say that the object has these properties ‘in and of itself’. Primary qualities, Locke says, are ‘inseparable’ from a physical object, whatever changes it goes through. For example, physical objects always have some shape and size. These properties don’t depend, either conceptually or for their existence, on whether and how the object is perceived.

 

By contrast, secondary qualities are related to perceivers by definition. As we saw, colour, by definition, is something that is experienced in vision. So it is a property that an object can have only in relation to its being seen by someone. The other secondary qualities are smell, taste, and sound. Secondary qualities aren’t possessed by all physical objects, e.g. plain glass doesn’t have a colour or a smell.

 

 

http://documents.rou...ryqualities.pdf

 

In Locke's term, "mass" would be a primary quality.  But then what?  What is it?



#166 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Moderators
  • 922 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:18 AM

.

Mass "measures" resistance to accelation, not matter, according to these guys (and just about everyone else), scientifically speaking, anyway.

 

Just about everyone else?

 

Have you actually tried searching for the terms "mass" and "amount of matter"?

 

Try searching this: What Is a Measure of the Quantity of Matter?

 

I think you will get a Lot of hits!

 

The one above says:

 

"A measure of the quantity of matter is called mass. The International System (SI), commonly known as the metric system, uses the kilogram as the base unit of mass, while the British imperial unit for the mass is the pound. In the United States, the pound is also used as the customary unit of mass.

In chemistry, matter is defined as anything that has mass and occupies space. Mass, which is one of the basic properties of matter, measures the amount of inertia an object contains. It is typically represented as the letter "m" in mathematical formulas. A derived unit for the mass is the gram. One kilogram is equivalent to 1000 grams."

 

You could have found that on your own, and many more like it.

 

 

 

 



#167 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:22 AM

Popeye, your own quote is saying the same thing, isn't it?  To wit:

 

"Mass, which is one of the basic properties of matter, measures the amount of inertia an object contains."

 

 

Mass is a "property of" matter (not matter itself) and mass MEASURES inertia, not matter per se.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 11:25 AM.


#168 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Moderators
  • 922 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:28 AM

I guess you are just looking for an argument, not a discussion.

 

My own quote says:

 

A measure of the quantity of matter is called mass.

 

Did you somehow miss seeing that?

 

I'm too busy to engage in this kind of silly back-and-forth

 

 



#169 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:29 AM

I guess you are just looking for an argument, not a discussion.

 

My own quote says:

 

A measure of the quantity of matter is called mass.

 

Did you somehow miss seeing that?

 

I'm too busy to engage in this kind of silly back-and-forth

 

Yeah, I saw that Popeye.   Did you see the part I quoted?  IT CAME FROM THE SAME EXCERPT OF YOURS.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 11:41 AM.


#170 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:33 AM

Just more to add to the confusion, eh?

 

A clock "measures" time, but it is not time.

 

What is mass measuring?  Is it matter, or inertia?

 

Scientifically speaking, it is inertia, not matter, the way I'm reading it.  The M in F=MA, stands for mass, not matter.

 

Now, they may go hand in glove, of course.  The more matter you have, the more mass you have.  But what is mass actually measuring?

 

I guess you are just looking for an argument, not a discussion....I'm too busy to engage in this kind of silly back-and-forth

 

I'm not sure why you think this is a "silly argument," not a discussion.  If anyone is "arguing" with you, it appears to be your own source (actually, both sources when wiki is included), not me.  At the time I mentioned it, I was just pointing out what your own sources said.  I happen to agree with those sources, but I wasn't quoting myself.

 

Google "resistance to acceleration" and see what you get.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 12:15 PM.