Science Forums

# What Is Mass?

## Recommended Posts

Because it's the property and not the object. The property doesn't "do" anything, the object does. The property is part of the explanation for why the object does what it does.

In science, imprecision is the refuge of scoundrels.

I know you don't think so. It looks enough like it to others though that you have Trumpian levels of approval here.

Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate, :phones:

Buffy

It will go on like this ad infinitum unless everyone stops responding. He will always find a way to give the wheel another spin. Until he is banned.

Maybe now is the time to reveal how the algebra thread went that he started: http://sciforums.com/threads/algebra-help.144627/   This has to be deliberate, I think.

Edited by exchemist
• Replies 140
• Created

#### Popular Posts

What will get you into trouble is the combination of these three things:     and then:     in conjunction with:   You don't get to claim ignorance to justify demanding others accept your novel theori

If anyone wants a laugh, take a read of the first few pages of this thread from another forum, in which I encountered this guy under the name "theorist-constant", before he was banned: http://www.scif

Good! You can read a dictionary! :cheer:   Unfortunately you've proven quite well that you do not know how to apply definitions to the real world and use-cases thereof. So:   :umno: Properties are n

#### Posted Images

[Lazily included copy of entire previous post for no reason whatsoever other than to waste bandwidth deleted]

ok Thanks,

So what properties of an object is gravity?

##### Share on other sites

So what properties of an object is gravity?

That's left as an exercise for the reader.

Inspiration is a guest that does not willingly visit the lazy, :phones:

Buffy

##### Share on other sites

That's left as an exercise for the reader.

Inspiration is a guest that does not willingly visit the lazy, :phones:

Buffy

I have heard that mass is attracted to mass?  For me the answer to what is mass is the same answer as what is gravity?

I have looked at sum fundamental properties of an object.  Seemingly the actions of charge are very similar to the actions of gravity?

Coulomb's laws explaining charge which could be an explanation of gravity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

The comparison that gravity has r² and so does charge.  Could the summation of all charge in a body be directly proportionate to r² of all bodies?

Edited by antoine
##### Share on other sites

I have heard that mass is attracted to mass?  For me the answer to what is mass is the same answer as what is gravity?

Yah, that's pretty much the problem. It's nice that "for you" that's the answer, but for the rest of us, it's just more evidence of your grossly oversimplified understanding of the topic, and it's just annoying and tiresome.

I have looked at sum fundamental properties of an object.  Seemingly the actions of charge are very similar to the actions of gravity?

[more drivel proving a lack of understanding of fundamentals make using more complex concepts worse than useless]

Yah, except the structure of charge in the Standard model is that there are elements with opposite charge.

Except in Star Trek, there's no such thing as "anti-gravity" to balance it out.

If you were even capable of understanding my earlier post and had read the article I linked you'd recognize that the discussion of charge is there to point out that the opposite charges in matter cancel out.

But clearly you didn't read it, didn't care to read it, or if you did read it, didn't like it and are trying furiously to scrub it out of your brain because it is inconsistent with what you apparently know--better than all of the rest of us and every physicist who ever lived--is "true."

While it is arguable you are "just asking questions" here, you're obviously refusing to understand any of the answers.

And you wonder why we don't respond to you?

Based on your argument in the Time Dilation thread, your main purpose seems to be to annoy people so that they won't respond, so that you can then claim that because no one has "refuted" your arguments that they must be "correct."

Now what's probably happened most of your life is that people have just ignored you. That's a defense/coping mechanism in dealing with people who appear to be either abnormal or outright sociopathic. As a mom, I have a little compassion, so my slapping you around like this and making a fool of you in public is actually some tough love so that maybe you can turn yourself around and become a productive citizen.

Stop blaming everyone else for your problems. Take some action to figure out how to get along with your fellow man. It might make your life better.

The truth may be stretched thin, but it never breaks, and it always surfaces above lies, as oil floats on water, :phones:

Buffy

##### Share on other sites

Yah, that's pretty much the problem. It's nice that "for you" that's the answer, but for the rest of us, it's just more evidence of your grossly oversimplified understanding of the topic, and it's just annoying and tiresome.

Yah, except the structure of charge in the Standard model is that there are elements with opposite charge.

Except in Star Trek, there's no such thing as "anti-gravity" to balance it out.

If you were even capable of understanding my earlier post and had read the article I linked you'd recognize that the discussion of charge is there to point out that the opposite charges in matter cancel out.

But clearly you didn't read it, didn't care to read it, or if you did read it, didn't like it and are trying furiously to scrub it out of your brain because it is inconsistent with what you apparently know--better than all of the rest of us and every physicist who ever lived--is "true."

While it is arguable you are "just asking questions" here, you're obviously refusing to understand any of the answers.

And you wonder why we don't respond to you?

Based on your argument in the Time Dilation thread, your main purpose seems to be to annoy people so that they won't respond, so that you can then claim that because no one has "refuted" your arguments that they must be "correct."

Now what's probably happened most of your life is that people have just ignored you. That's a defense/coping mechanism in dealing with people who appear to be either abnormal or outright sociopathic. As a mom, I have a little compassion, so my slapping you around like this and making a fool of you in public is actually some tough love so that maybe you can turn yourself around and become a productive citizen.

Stop blaming everyone else for your problems. Take some action to figure out how to get along with your fellow man. It might make your life better.

The truth may be stretched thin, but it never breaks, and it always surfaces above lies, as oil floats on water, :phones:

Buffy

An interesting evaluation by yourself about me personal but completely wrong.  I am the light of any party, I have 100's of friends and I am not ignored.  I am not ignored on some other forums either, we have successful discussion to a degree. I have been on the Cambridge University Naked science forum for several years with little bother.   If I am misunderstanding or have poor interpretation, I do not ''see'' how you can hold that against me?  My mind is not your mind so I may think differently.

I come on science forums to talk, I am expected to be a Shakespeare or know everything.

I am also misunderstood all the time .

I said :

For me the answer to what is mass is the same answer as what is gravity?

That question is asking you how do you ''see'' the answer to gravity?

I clearly put question marks, it is not a statement implying anything.

You also say:

If you were even capable of understanding my earlier post and had read the article I linked you'd recognize that the discussion of charge is there to point out that the opposite charges in matter cancel out.

I know this .    I explain this several ways:

A+B=C

q1+q2=q3

-e+(+1e)=N

Please do not misinterpret my poor communication skills in being lacking in knowledge, I have spent several years learning science.

Can we discuss a rock?

A rock will measure 0 net Q.

The rock though still contains q1 and q1 at an equilibrium?

The charge properties of the rock remain independent but are measured dependent because science is measuring both independent charges at the same time?  The measured result being that of both signs together rather than a measurement of independent signs.  Measuring them both at the same time cancels out the individualisation, it does not cancel out the individual properties of the rock.

-e and +1e remain independent to act on other bodies properties of charge?

added- I will put questions in bold from now on , ok?

Edited by antoine
##### Share on other sites

The rock though still contains q1 and q1 at an equilibrium?

The charge properties of the rock remain independent but are measured dependent because science is measuring both independent charges at the same time?

One problem here is your habit of making statements which end with a question mark, so nobody knows whether you are asking or stating. Which is it in the above?

##### Share on other sites

One problem here is your habit of making statements which end with a question mark, so nobody knows whether you are asking or stating. Which is it in the above?

They are all questions except the second to last line with no question mark which is my offered conclusion.. Your answers to my questions may change my conclusion.

Edited by antoine
##### Share on other sites

To help with my questions, I have drawn an illustration of the question. (p.s I know it is not a rock)

Added - I believe somebody mentioned dynamic mass?  Is Dynamic charge anything similar?

Would adding an electron tilt my scales?

added: By adding an electron to the left hand side of the scales , I increase the mass on the left hand side?

In reverse on the right side, if I add a Proton I change the mass of the right side?

Although I could variate the mass on either side of the scales, r² remains unchanged of both pans between pan and body?

The supporting body having likewise repulsive charges to retain scale balance?

The supporting body also having opposite attractive charges to retain scale balance?

I have added a second illustration to help in understanding my questions. It is intentionally upside down.

Edited by antoine
##### Share on other sites

An interesting evaluation by yourself about me personal but completely wrong.

Great demonstration of the problem you have in seeing reality. You're entitled to think you're brilliant. Others will judge you and they don't really care what you think of yourself. Which is apparently a lot.

I am the light of any party,

You go to parties. You tell jokes that you think are hilarious, and since people don't say "that's not funny" you have absolute *proof* that you are the most popular person there! QED!

I am not ignored on some other forums either, we have successful discussion to a degree.

"...to a degree" is a telling qualification...

I have been on the Cambridge University Naked science forum for several years with little bother.

"...no one replies to me or if they do, well, at least with very few complaints...."

If I am misunderstanding or have poor interpretation, I do not ''see'' how you can hold that against me?

As I've said before, you claim to be "learning" and then turn around and tell everyone they're wrong.

Like with Time Dilation.

And now you're going to tell us we're wrong about rocks.

My mind is not your mind so I may think differently.

Mmmm hmmm.

I come on science forums to talk, I am expected to be a Shakespeare or know everything.

Oh if you take a look around dear, we LOVE to talk to folks who *actually* want to learn and share ideas.

No need to be Shakespeare. Just not to be an *******.

I am also misunderstood all the time.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself "why am I misunderstood all the time?"

Pro tip: it may not be all because there's something wrong with other people.

That question is asking you how do you ''see'' the answer to gravity?

I clearly put question marks, it is not a statement implying anything.

"No one is allowed to interpret my words in any way other than what I think I mean!"

Communication is about the totality of the words you say. You don't get to force people to ignore dumb stuff you've said in the past.

Please do not misinterpret my poor communication skills in being lacking in knowledge, I have spent several years learning science.

Easily half of our members do not have English as their first language. I assure you we have no problem overlooking and interpreting simple mistranslations.

It's important for you to understand that even the most generous interpretation of your words betray the fact that you don't understand the fundamental concepts that are necessary to explain to you why so much of what you say is so, well, "not even wrong."

Can we discuss a rock?

We'd be happy to! :cheer:

A rock will measure 0 net Q.

The rock though still contains q1 and q1 at an equilibrium?

The charge properties of the rock remain independent but are measured dependent because science is measuring both independent charges at the same time?  The measured result being that of both signs together rather than a measurement of independent signs.  Measuring them both at the same time cancels out the individualisation, it does not cancel out the individual properties of the rock.

-e and +1e remain independent to act on other bodies properties of charge?

Charges--as with so much else in physics--obey the Inverse Square law, and because of that, in the case of charge, the answer is "no." Nothing can get close enough to the constituent particles that have charge for that to be detectable.

added- I will put questions in bold from now on , ok?

No need. Just using a question mark is fine.

But get used to the fact that no one here at this point is going to take any question you ask as "just asking questions." We're now well-trained--by you and your extended behavior here--to take all those questions as being loaded, and fodder for playing ludicrous mind games.

A general reminder: we're not a branch of government, so the First Amendment doesn't apply here.

But more importantly, "Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom from Ridicule."

Whether dost thou profess thyself, a knave or a fool? :phones:

Buffy

##### Share on other sites

Added - I believe somebody mentioned dynamic mass?  Is Dynamic charge anything similar?

Would adding an electron tilt my scales?

Yes, because the electron has mass, albeit a very tiny one.

Keeping it there is another matter, since it's likely to be repelled or attracted randomly based on the net charge, if any, of the matter where you place it.

added: By adding an electron to the left hand side of the scales , I increase the mass on the left hand side?

Yep. No chiralty here.

In reverse on the right side, if I add a Proton I change the mass of the right side?

Indeed, although quite a bit more mass than when you added an electron on the left, due to the fact, of which you may be unaware, that protons weigh a shitton more than electrons do.

Although I could variate the mass on either side of the scales, r² remains unchanged of both pans between pan and body?

In most cases, yes! :cheer:

The supporting body having likewise repulsive charges to retain scale balance?

Well I don't know where you buy your scales, but I don't generally find them repulsive. The one I have is quite pretty! :cheer:

And of course if the scale is made of stable material, and not made of magnets, it's unlikely to have much charge at all, if any.

The supporting body also having opposite attractive charges to retain scale balance?

Um. See the response to the previous question. (I guess. Whoo.)

I have added a second illustration to help in understanding my questions. It is intentionally upside down.

[* This response intentionally left blank *]

While wading through the whimsies, the puerilities, and unintelligible jargon of this work, I laid it down often to ask myself how it could have been that the world should have so long consented to give reputation to such nonsense as this? :phones:

Buffy

##### Share on other sites

[* Uselessly repeated copy of previous post deleted *]

Of course the question was related to the Electron and Proton and not of the materials the scales were made from.  My mistake of being incomplete with the sentence.

It is Interesting that we find ourselves in agreement with the answers to the questions although apparently I am clueless.

I will think of some more related question and return another time to ask the questions,  Thanks for your answers.

##### Share on other sites

If A+B=C

Does (A+a)+(B+b)=C   still?

If we double the mass each side of the scales  do we double the charge but it still reads C?

Edited by antoine
##### Share on other sites

:umno:

$\left(A+A\right)+\left(B+B\right) = C$

$2A+2B=C$

$2\left(A+B\right) = C$

...and substituting:

$\left(A+B\right)=C$

into the prior result gives you:

$2\left(C\right) \neq C$

We all have zero clue as to what the heck you're doing with the charge. It's really not relevant to anything and until you, like, understand stuff, it'd prolly be a really good idea to forget about it.

Innumeracy and pseudoscience are often associated, in part because of the ease with which mathematical certainty can be invoked, to bludgeon the innumerate into a dumb acquiescence, :phones:

Buffy

##### Share on other sites

:umno:

$\left(A+A\right)+\left(B+B\right) = C$

$2A+2B=C$

$2\left(A+B\right) = C$

...and substituting:

$\left(A+B\right)=C$

into the prior result gives you:

$2\left(C\right) \neq C$

We all have zero clue as to what the heck you're doing with the charge. It's really not relevant to anything and until you, like, understand stuff, it'd prolly be a really good idea to forget about it.

Innumeracy and pseudoscience are often associated, in part because of the ease with which mathematical certainty can be invoked, to bludgeon the innumerate into a dumb acquiescence, :phones:

Buffy

....and deliberately silly algebraic mistakes are a great way to lure people into responding to worthless posts. :)

##### Share on other sites

....and deliberately silly algebraic mistakes are a great way to lure people into responding to worthless posts. :)

Sure makes him look silly, though, doesn't it? I mean, if you can't do 7th grade Algebra, tensors and fields are pretty much out of the question, eh? :cheer:

Why, he is the prince's jester: a very dull fool; only his gift is in devising impossible slanders: none but libertines delight in him; and the commendation is not in his wit, but in his villany; for he both pleases men and angers them, and then they laugh at him and beat him, :phones:

Buffy

##### Share on other sites

Why, he is the prince's jester: a very dull fool; only his gift is in devising impossible slanders: none but libertines delight in him; and the commendation is not in his wit, but in his villany; for he both pleases men and angers them, and then they laugh at him and beat him, :phones:

Buffy

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.