Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Concept Of Mass


  • Please log in to reply
216 replies to this topic

#171 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:53 AM

The first part of your excerpt is talking about "derived units."  The last sentence says:

 

A derived unit for the mass is the gram. One kilogram is equivalent to 1000 grams. 

 

 

Generally speaking, a "gram" (or kilogram) is a unit of weight.  But I think that everyone agrees that mass is not weight.

 

I guess you could say something like "matter measures mass, which is a measure of inertia."  So matter becomes a "measure of a measure."

 

But this is exactly the type of conceptual confusion I've been talking about.

 

They also say that mass is a property of matter, but it's unclear to me what that is supposed to mean, exactly.  That makes it sound like a "subpart" of matter, not matter itself.  That's one reason I quoted Locke, who said that matter has many properties, not just one.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 12:36 PM.


#172 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1003 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 12:31 PM

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.

Ah!  Mass has no ( or various?) weight.  Not matter but weight is the key.  We had this demonstrated in eighth grade but it's been a long time.  A classmate and I - one was smaller but the other weighed less.    The teacher explained it as - I think - one's body being more compact than the other.  Does that sound right?  



#173 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 12:42 PM

Ah!  Mass has no ( or various?) weight.  Not matter but weight is the key. Does that sound right?  

 

No, not to me, Hazel.  Read the next few posts after that if you want to see why I say that.

 

In brief, mass is NOT weight, which is merely a function of your location.  Your "weight" will be more on, say, Jupiter.  If you stand on a scale, you will "weigh" less on a mountaintop than you would at sea level.. The amount of matter in your body will be the same, wherever you go, but your mass would vary..

 

Popeye seems to be upset with me for pointing this out, for some reason.

 

Edited to correct error


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 01:21 PM.


#174 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 12:51 PM

In brief, mass is NOT weight, which is merely a function of your location.  Your "weight" will be more on, say, Jupiter.  If you stand on a scale, you will "weigh" less on a mountaintop. The amount of matter in your body will be the same, wherever you go, but your mass would vary..

 

It would take more "force" to accelerate you on Jupiter.  Or, looked at another way, the same amount of force would not accelerate you as much on Jupiter as it would on earth.

 

According the the F=MA equation, anyway.  It basically says that mass is "resistance to acceleration," also known as "inertia."

 

Conceptually, mass is not the same thing as "weight," which is strictly a function of gravitational forces.  Mass is a broader concept than that, and it differs from matter.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 01:19 PM.


#175 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1003 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 01:45 PM

No, not to me, Hazel.  Read the next few posts after that if you want to see why I say that.

 

In brief, mass is NOT weight, which is merely a function of your location.  Your "weight" will be more on, say, Jupiter.  If you stand on a scale, you will "weigh" less on a mountaintop than you would at sea level.. The amount of matter in your body will be the same, wherever you go, but your mass would vary..

 

Popeye seems to be upset with me for pointing this out, for some reason.

 

Edited to correct error

I didn't mean mass is weight.  I meant it is weight that is involved with weight.  Maybe I should have said gravity?



#176 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 02:05 PM

I didn't mean mass is weight.  I meant it is weight that is involved with weight.  Maybe I should have said gravity?

 

You meant to say "I meant it is weight that is involved with mass [not weight]," I think.

 

Weight and matter have a relationship, as do matter and mass.  But sometimes they get confused.  A kilogram (as Popeye's citation referred to) is a measure of weight, not mass.

 

As Popeye noted, gravitation mass is calculated differently than inertial mass (resistance to acceleration).  But the two are basically equivalent.

 

Until relatively recently (before Galileo) it was thought that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.  The reasoning went like this:  If the "same" force (i.e. gravity) is applied to different masses, then that force will accelerate the more massive one less.  It's like the difference between hitting a baseball versus a bowling ball with the same swing of a baseball bat.

 

So how could they fall at the same rate?  That would imply that it was not the "same" force being applied, and that more force was being applied to the heavier falling object than the lighter one.  That seemed to be rather occult-like to them, involving some "conspiracy" by gravity to adjust it's force according to each object, so that they would all end up falling at identical rates.

 

Anyway, turns out that they do fall at the same rate, because the attraction is mutual and proportional to mass.  The heavier object does, in effect, get "pulled harder" by the Earth)  than the lighter one does, so it all balances out that way.

 

That's oversimplified, but gives a hint as to how mass and weight are related to gravity.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 02:24 PM.


#177 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 03:23 PM

That's oversimplified, but gives a hint as to how mass and weight are related to gravity.

 

I can elaborate on that a little more, if you're interested, Hazel.  Otherwise I won't bother.



#178 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 04:02 PM

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.

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

Here's a more modern summary of the various "properties" of matter, along with a definition of matter:

 

What Are the Properties of Matter?

 

Scientists define matter as any object that contains molecules and is capable of taking up space.

 

The properties of matter include an object's density, color, mass, volume, length, malleability and ability to change its chemical composition, according to the University of California, Davis.

 

 

 

https://www.referenc...&o=600605&l=dir

 

Once again a distinction is made between "matter" and it's properties.  It does not say, for example, that "matter is mass."

 

If you want to somehow quantify matter, you can use "weight" as a means of doing that.  But, even so, the question of "how much"  matter (or mass) there is and the question of "what is mass?" are different questions.

 

So, in that sense, I suppose you could have two different definitions of "mass" and the "answer" to each question could be different.

 

But saying that I have 10 pounds of coal, doesn't say anything about what coal is.  Nor does it make coal it's weight (10 pounds in this case).

 

For the sake of clarity, one should use care in answering a question by making sure the answer is pertinent to the question being asked.



#179 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1144 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 04:55 PM

In reality mass is the Higgs Field interaction in modern physics like gravity is a field when energy is applied to the field via Tachyon Condensation, Mass is created are you familiar to the idea of fields moronium? It is not a force but rather a field, which I think is kinda what you are getting at in how mass behaves like a force to a extent. Mass is created is directly proportional to the energy applied to the Higgs Mechanism's field which there are other fields too such the Strong Nuclear Force's Field and Electromagnetic Field when a property is applied to the field then a force is created, fields have a volume in Space that apply forces upon things, when mass is generated afterward when a force is applied to a Higgs Field with mass already created is resists the motion of the force, but mass resists movement like friction thus is not exactly a force, though other fields with energy bound into them like the Strong Nuclear Force can have interaction with the Higgs field.  https://physics.aps....articles/v6/111


Edited by VictorMedvil, 15 April 2019 - 05:09 PM.


#180 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 05:00 PM

 It is not a force but rather a field, which I think is kinda what you are getting at in how mass behaves like a force to a extent. 

 

 

Well, Vic, they say there are four "fundamental forces."  How many of those operate in a "field," ya figure?  Does that mean they're not forces?



#181 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1144 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 05:10 PM

Well, Vic, they say there are four "fundamental forces."  How many of those operate in a "field," ya figure?  Does that mean they're not forces?

 

Well the force is interaction with the field that causes acceleration, mass does not have a interaction with the field that causes acceleration, thus cannot be exactly considered a force. Just as electric resistance is resistance to the movement of particles by the electromagnetic field which the electromagnetic field is a force field where as the electrical resistance is not due to the electromagnetic field is the one that accelerates the particles or masses. Technically Friction,Mass, Interia, and Electrical resistance have that all in common and can be thought of as Vector fields that resist movement.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 15 April 2019 - 05:20 PM.


#182 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 06:16 PM

 thus cannot be exactly considered a force. 

 

Exactly?  Well, this may just be a matter of semantics, Vic. Just looking at electromagnetism, wiki says:

 

Electromagnetism is a branch of physics involving the study of the electromagnetic force, a type of physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles...The electromagnetic force is responsible for practically all phenomena one encounters in daily life above the nuclear scale, with the exception of gravity...Electromagnetic forces also explain how these particles carry momentum by their movement. This includes the forces we experience in "pushing" or "pulling" ordinary material objects,...

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...lectromagnetism

 

I've really just been talking in terms of Newton's laws of motion/mechanics, as you know. F=MA and all that.


Edited by Moronium, 15 April 2019 - 06:42 PM.


#183 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2594 posts

Posted 15 April 2019 - 10:59 PM

It would take more "force" to accelerate you on Jupiter.  Or, looked at another way, the same amount of force would not accelerate you as much on Jupiter as it would on earth.

 

According the the F=MA equation, anyway.  It basically says that mass is "resistance to acceleration," also known as "inertia."

 

Conceptually, mass is not the same thing as "weight," which is strictly a function of gravitational forces.  Mass is a broader concept than that, and it differs from matter.

No, it would take more force to LIFT you on a hypothetical surface beneath the clouds of Jupiter, but MOVING you (assume you were in spherical form) would take the same force. I think this kinda bad analogy might be one that helps show you the sources of your confusions.



#184 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1144 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 12:14 AM

Exactly?  Well, this may just be a matter of semantics, Vic. Just looking at electromagnetism, wiki says:

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...lectromagnetism

 

I've really just been talking in terms of Newton's laws of motion/mechanics, as you know. F=MA and all that.

 

Well, thats your problem Newtonian Mechanics do not function properly or at all in most situations however the concept of fields and the gravitational field is still in Newtonian Mechanics which is as described when you enter a field it puts a force upon objects with a property.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 16 April 2019 - 12:19 AM.


#185 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:55 AM

No, it would take more force to LIFT you on a hypothetical surface beneath the clouds of Jupiter, but MOVING you (assume you were in spherical form) would take the same force. I think this kinda bad analogy might be one that helps show you the sources of your confusions.

 

You may be right, but I can't see why.  Of course few things are "spherical in form" to begin with, so that would be the exception, not the rule.

 

Let's say you have a spherical boulder which "weighs" one ton on the earth's surface but weighs 4 tons on the surface of another planet.  Now we run a loaded semi carrying 40 tons of cargo and going 100 mph into each of them.  Are you saying they will move the same amount of lateral (not vertical) distance on each planet?

 

As is obvious from the post of mine which you quoted, that would not be my understanding of F=MA: I said:

 

Or, looked at another way, the same amount of force would not accelerate you as much on Jupiter as it would on earth.

Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2019 - 05:59 AM.


#186 hazelm

hazelm

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1003 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 04:38 AM

I can elaborate on that a little more, if you're interested, Hazel.  Otherwise I won't bother.

It's alright, Moronium.  My response was vague because of what was in my mind when I responded to Ocean Breeze.  I was trying to connect back to what I thought I had learned long ago.  Ocean Breeze was equating matter and mass which I picked up on.  But I was wrong.  It was the relationship of mass and weight that I was trying to remember.  A more condensed mass can weigh more than a lesser condensed mass even if they are the same size.  In our eighth grade class, one girl was smaller than the other but weighed more due to more ----- density?  ----- of body mass.

 

An example that I saw online yesterday was a bowling bowl and a basket ball.  Now I think we are back to matter.  Yes?

 

Thanks



#187 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 16 April 2019 - 05:02 AM

Now I think we are back to matter.  Yes?

 

Thanks

 

Hazel, you put the word "yes" in the form of a question, but I'm not sure what the question is.

 

In what sense are we "back to matter?"