Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes. The mass is unchanged. The same semi would be crushed under the boulder on jupiter, but would shove it just as hard as anywhere else if it was a ramming thing. Bar friction, blah blah the kinetic

Yeah, that one is a real gem!   Consider the following as my personal musing on the subject:   We all know that [math] E=m{ c }^{ 2 }[/math]   And it follows from that, energy = mass;  photons have en

Just in case the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass is not confusing enough; thanks to quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, we now know that even rest mass is due to “the churning of partic

The bowling ball is heavier because of matter which is also mass. 

 

Well, this is what I've directed many of my last posts to.  In my view matter is NOT mass, per se.  There may be a correlation between the two, but they are not the same thing.

 

It may be true, for example, that the hotter it gets, the more you sweat.  But heat is not sweat, know what I'm sayin?  Theoretically, it might be possible to develop a scale from which you could derive the temperature by measuring the amount of a person's sweat.  But that still wouldn't make sweat = heat.  They would still be two different things.

 

As I said before:

 

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
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

 

Arrrgh!  No, Hazel, you still have it wrong. In none of my posts did I ever equate matter to mass! I was very careful to point out the distinction between the two.

 

Let's take a look at my post where you think I am doing this, OK? I am going to change to a different Wiki link which clarifies the difference between Mass and weight also:

 

 

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  In scientific contexts, mass is the amount of "matter" in an object, 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.

 

Weight  is the force exerted on an object by gravity.[1] In other words, an object with a mass of 1.0 kilogram weighs approximately 9.81 newtons on the surface of the Earth, which is its mass multiplied by the gravitational field strength

 

 

 

Can you see and understand the difference between all three now?

 

 

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

 

 

No, a more condensed mass does not weigh more than a less condensed mass as long as the masses are equal. One kilogram of foam rubber weighs exactly the same as one kilogram of gold. The only difference is the more condensed mass occupies a smaller spatial volume.

 

The smaller girl weighed more because she had more mass, probably because of her muscle density being higher than fat density in the other girl, or maybe she had a gold necklace!

 

Let me know if this is still unclear. I will respond to you but I have given up on responding to Moronium, who is just here to bloviate and nitpick in order to make himself feel like he is accomplishing something. The only thing I see him accomplishing is annoying other members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrrgh!  No, Hazel, you still have it wrong. In none of my posts did I ever equate matter to mass! I was very careful to point out the distinction between the two.

 

Let's take a look at my post where you think I am doing this, OK? I am going to change to a different Wiki link which clarifies the difference between Mass and weight also:

 

 

 

 

Can you see and understand the difference between all three now?

 

 

 

No, a more condensed mass does not weigh more than a less condensed mass as long as the masses are equal. One kilogram of foam rubber weighs exactly the same as one kilogram of gold. The only difference is the more condensed mass occupies a smaller spatial volume.

 

The smaller girl weighed more because she had more mass, probably because of her muscle density being higher than fat density in the other girl, or maybe she had a gold necklace!

 

Let me know if this is still unclear. I will respond to you but I have given up on responding to Moronium, who is just here to bloviate and nitpick in order to make himself feel like he is accomplishing something. The only thing I see him accomplishing is annoying other members.

I think the problem is that I am not saying it the way it is in my head.  And, by now, I am probably even garbling it in my effort to say it right.  What I am trying to talk about is a relationship.  In fact, I think I said that somewhere.  No matter.  I am on my way out now.  I'll get back to this later and work on it.

 

Thanks much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have given up on responding to Moronium, who is just here to bloviate and nitpick in order to make himself feel like he is accomplishing something. The only thing I see him accomplishing is annoying other members.

 

Since you have taken it upon yourself to assess my motives, etc., here again, Popeye, as you just did in another thread, I will repeat the comment I made there:

 

Posted Today, 09:10 AM

 

OceanBreeze, on 16 Apr 2019 - 09:01 AM, said:

You totally miss the point every single time. I have given up on you as an annoying troll.

 

Well, that's unfortunate, Popeye.  I'm not trying to offend you, but I think your "annoyance" stems more from your own characteristics than my comments.

 

I think you often tend to oversimplify problems or questions, and then offer a simplistic "pat" answer to a question.  You then get extremely defensive, and feel "attacked," if your simple "answer" is questioned.

 

You did it with this article, too.  According to you, NOTHING the guy says can even be considered it if does comport with your initial understanding.  You immediately dismiss him as an idiot.

 

What he's saying is that a "spinning plate" would NOT spin as it does in distant galaxies, UNLESS dark matter is postulated.  Can't you see that?

 

Maybe you're the one "missing the point," eh?  But, even assuming that I am missing the point, how does that make me a "troll?"

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35722-cut-the-bullshit-in-physics/page-2?do=findComment&comment=373369

 

You have made it clear that you don't like to "argue."  Apparently you just like to make pronouncements, and then refuse to address any comments made in response that might question your pronouncements.  I'm a little different.  If I don't agree with something I will say so, and I will say why.  If my assertions are challenged, I will respond.  Call that "arguing" if you want.  I just consider it to be an element of any reasonable discussion.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Yes.

The mass is unchanged. The same semi would be crushed under the boulder on jupiter, but would shove it just as hard as anywhere else if it was a ramming thing. Bar friction, blah blah the kinetic transfer is the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

The mass is unchanged. The same semi would be crushed under the boulder on jupiter, but would shove it just as hard as anywhere else if it was a ramming thing. Bar friction, blah blah the kinetic transfer is the same. 

Indeed. Because of F=ma, in fact, or rather Ft (impulse)= Δmv. 

 

 

Moronium seems to have a rather strange impression of how all this works. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

The mass is unchanged. The same semi would be crushed under the boulder on jupiter, but would shove it just as hard as anywhere else if it was a ramming thing. Bar friction, blah blah the kinetic transfer is the same. 

 

Yes to what?  Would the mass and momentum of the semi also be "unchanged" if it was on Jupiter?  Why would the semi be "crushed?'  Because the boulder is spherical, that it?  Is there any amount of force (say a two mile long train, packed to the gills with massive cargo, going 100 mph) which would not be "crushed" by the boulder? Would the same (1 ton) boulder on earth also "crush" the semi?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes to what?  Would the mass and momentum of the semi also be "unchanged" if it was on Jupiter?  Why would the semi be "crushed?'  Because the boulder is spherical, that it?  Is there any amount of force (say a two mile long train, packed to the gills with massive cargo, going 100 mph) which would not be "crushed" by the boulder? Would the same (1 ton) boulder on earth also "crush" the semi?

To you question: yes. The mass would be unchanged, yes. Crushed by accelerated mass of boulder (weight). No, that's just to minimize the "aha minor pedantic digression" things possible ini a humanoid argument and keep to the core of it. Depends entirely on how deep in the gravity the thing is and tensile strengths involved, this is a bad "pedantic" question. Probably not, most semi have well over 1 ton of suspension; again pedantic digression from core concept that is not worth my time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To you question: yes. The mass would be unchanged, yes. 

 

The question wasn't whether the mass would be unchanged.  It was this:

 

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?

 

 

I still don't know what your trying to say, by way of explanation as opposed to rank assertion.  I took it to be something like:  "Neither would move at all, so, yes, they would move the "same" distance on each planet."

 

Your original assertion was that the mass of a "spherical" object would not change, unless (perhaps) the force exerted was in direct opposition to the gravitational force (i.e, "lifted").  I still don't see why the shape is relevant either.  Suppose the "sphere" was a beachball.  Would that also "crush" the semi, or would the beachball "move" when struck?  Again, apart from asserting a conclusion, supported by "blah, blah," I can't see where you've given any reason for your claims.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

 pedantic digression from core concept that is not worth my time.

 

 

Thanks for the definition of pedantic.  That helps a lot.  Here's another:

 

Pedantic means "like a pedant," someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way. You don't want to go antique-shopping with a pedantic friend, who will use the opportunity to bore you with his in-depth knowledge of Chinese porcelain kitty-litter boxes.

 

 

Since when did asking a question become pedantry, I wonder?

 

I've certainly heard the "not worth my time" response to questions before.  It generally comes from someone who is unable to support their assertions.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did asking a question become pedantry, I wonder?

Since you are currently playing minutia word games. You're also starting to fail at even pedantry now, since you can't even follow the little arrows top right of quote-boxes to get to the root of the conversation when your mind fails to remember beyond 1 post back. Allow me to help you. After this, try and be better it is REALLY easy to click those little arrows.

 

The question wasn't whether the mass would be unchanged.  It was this:

here is the root of the contested "yes":

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?

Bold; the root of the "yes" you are playing word games with at the moment. Please try to keep your thoughts lucid.

 

Further, your understanding of F=MA quoted in this same post from a previous post was wrong because you're confusing MASS (intrinsic property of matter, inertia, etc) with WEIGHT (mass in an acceleration frame). This is why I said this kind of understanding shows the roots of your confusion.

 

 

I've certainly heard the "not worth my time" response to questions before.  It generally comes from someone who is unable to support their assertions.

In this case, it's because of the useless and unproductive "pick a fight" kinda tripe I expected, and got with this most recent reply. You're not here to learn, you're here to play devil's advocate and give yourself some kicks. It's not really worth my time. you're Posting incoherently and Trolling. Be better, or take a vacation. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, your understanding of F=MA quoted in this same post from a previous post was wrong because you're confusing MASS (intrinsic property of matter, inertia, etc) with WEIGHT (mass in an acceleration frame). This is why I said this kind of understanding shows the roots of your confusion.

 

 

Really?  I have repeatedly said the opposite.  Weight is not mass.

 

You still have not explained anything.  Basically just your usual haughty, sneering, response to someone who disagrees with you. Backed up by an authoritarian "vacation" threat, this time.  Well, that's certainly one way to suppress and avoid questions, which you seem to greatly resent, eh, GAHD?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...