Science Forums

# The Concept Of Mass

## Recommended Posts

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?

What I resent is silly confrontational attitudes and constant moving of goalposts. Eg changes to semi/train/beachball/etc without any merit.

Acceleration force acts against mass, not weight. On jupiter the acceleration would be the same, it just has to "fight" different acceleration from gravity for vertical travel.

What I resent is silly nitpicking when is pointedly try to avoid that nitpicking: "blah blah" which comes directly from "barring friction" and was meant to include all the possible minutia differences like air pressure and it's resistance, wind speeds, the type of ground plane and it's friction coefficient, all that "blah blah" that would change the measurements in an explainable way.

What I resent, is someone sticking to a faulty argument from stubbornness sake, and then playing word games constantly to waste my time. You can redilly answer those questions yourself with a little bit of time, I've pointed you in the direction to look and you're being a troll is the only ration explanation for your actions.

Yes, you are being warned for being a troll.

• Replies 216
• Created

#### 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

t. On jupiter the acceleration would be the same, it just has to "fight" different acceleration from gravity for vertical travel.

Yes, you are being warned for being a troll.

I certainly agree that the "fight" would be different for lateral as opposed to vertical motion.  But I don't see how that means the "mass" would be different, from case.to case.

Let me present the issue in a different way.

Take a bowling ball which is just "resting" on the ground, it doesn't matter what planet you're on.  That ball can be accelerated ("moved," lets say), right?  How much "force" it would take to move it is a separate question, but I think most would agree that the more force applied, the more it would move.

Now, take that same bowling ball and do this:  Take a drill and insert into one of the "finger sockets."  Then drill a hole completely through the ball.  Now, put the ball back on the ground and take a 20' peice of 3" rebar and insert it into hole.  Now pound that rebar completely down into the planet.

My sense is that it would now take more force to move the ball than it did before.  Which is another way to say that it's resistance to lateral acceleration has increased.  In that sense, it's "mass" has increased, since mass is ultimately just a measure of "resistance to acceleration."

Why would it be "harder to move?"  Because now it is more firmly "rooted" to the planet.

Now replace the "rebar" with the downward pull of the planet exerted by gravity.  The stronger that is, the more force it will take to move the ball, whether vertically or laterally.  In a black hole, for example, it would probably be impossible to move the ball at all, because it would be held so "tightly" in place by the gravitational force.

So the question is not it's "weight." even though that is also a function of the gravitational force being applied to an an object.  It is a question of the effect of the gravitational force on the ability of other "forces" to move the ball.  As I understand F=MA, the greater the force required to move an object, the greater it's inherent resistance to acceleration (i.e mass).

##### Share on other sites

I certainly agree that the "fight" would be different for lateral as opposed to vertical motion.  But I don't see how that means the "mass" would be different, from case.to case.

Don't change what 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.

This is direct evidence of the "trolling" I am talking about. You are literally inverting what I said; The mass is unchanged

Do not play the misquote game with me any more.

Take a bowling ball which is just "resting" on the ground, it doesn't matter what planet you're on.  That ball can be accelerated ("moved," lets say), right?  How much "force" it would take to move it is a separate question, but I think most would agree that the more force applied, the more it would move.

Now, take that same bowling ball and do this:  Take a drill and insert into one of the "finger sockets."  Then drill a hole completely through the ball.  Now, put the ball back on the ground and take a 20' peice of 3" rebar and insert it into hole.  Now pound that rebar completely down into the planet.

My sense is that it would now take more force to move the ball than it did before.  Which is another way to say that it's resistance to lateral acceleration has increased.  In that sense, it's "mass" has increased, since mass is ultimately just a measure of "resistance to acceleration."

Why would it be "harder to move?"  Because now it is more firmly "rooted" to the planet.

Now replace the "rebar" with the downward pull of the planet exerted by gravity.  The stronger that is, the more force it will take to move the ball, whether vertically or laterally.  In a black hole, for example, it would probably be impossible to move the ball at all, because it would be held so "tightly" in place by the gravitational force.

So the question is not it's "weight." even though that is also a function of the gravitational force being applied to an an object.  It is a question of the effect of the gravitational force on the ability of other "forces" to move the ball.  As I understand F=MA, the greater the force required to move an object, the greater it's inherent resistance to acceleration (i.e mass).

This is you playing the "blah blah" games I pointed out are irrelivent and pedantic.

...pointedly try to avoid that nitpicking: "blah blah" which comes directly from "barring friction" and was meant to include all the possible minutia differences like air pressure and it's resistance, wind speeds, the type of ground plane and it's friction coefficient, all that "blah blah" that would change the measurements in an explainable way.

This isn't mass, it's side bar tripe that matters in niche scenarios and is unrelated to the core concept. You are purposefully being a troll at this point?  Are you just trying to get your *** banned for some self destructive impulse?

##### Share on other sites

Here's what you said, verbatim:

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.

As originally presented my conclusion was explicitly based on my understanding of F=MA (whether that equation is a valid one is not raised).

Here you say it would take "more force" to LIFT an object.  More force than what?  I took you to mean more force than it would take to LIFT the identical object on earth. Did you mean something else?

Once again I ask you if your understanding of F=MA differs from mine. If so, how?

As I understand F=MA, the greater the force required to move an object, the greater it's inherent resistance to acceleration (i.e mass).  Is your understanding different?

Edited by Moronium
##### Share on other sites

Here's what you said, verbatim:

As originally presented my conclusion was explicitly based on my understanding of F=MA (whether that equation is a valid one is not raised).

Here you say it would take "more force" to LIFT an object.  More force than what?  I took you to mean more force than it would take to LIFT the identical object on earth. Did you mean something else?

Once again I ask you if your understanding of F=MA differs from mine. If so, how?

Yes, more force to lift than on earth.

Yes, it differes because of this quote:

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.

This is where your understanding is flawed.

There would be identical accelerations by force applied. The pedantic minutia of differences in environment would cause some explainable but irrelevant differences(giant bold underlines above).

Lifting would be against the (arbitrary based on depth into gravity well) acceleration frame and thus also require (arbitrary) more force for the same meter stick of physical lift but be identical in actual acceleration. This is why ramming was used, and spheres were used; they negate the pedantic minutia and get to the core.

##### Share on other sites

There would be identical accelerations by force applied.

Lifting would be against the (arbitrary based on depth into gravity well) acceleration frame and thus also require (arbitrary) more force for the same meter stick of physical lift but be identical in actual acceleration.

Now you're confusing me again.  The issue wasn't whether the "actual acceleration," would be different.  It was whether the mass would be different.  The more force required to accelerate an object, the greater its  "mass," right?

##### Share on other sites

Now you're confusing me again.  The issue wasn't whether the "actual acceleration," would be different.  It was whether the mass would be different.  The more force required to accelerate an object, the greater its  "mass," right?

No, no difference in mass. Yes, more force required for greater mass to accelerate to the same speeds as lesser mass.

"the same amount of force would not accelerate you as much on Jupiter as it would on earth." is wrong. That is where you are failing. Reconsider this part, fix your failure, and you will gain insight.

##### Share on other sites

No, no difference in mass. Yes, more force required for greater mass to accelerate to the same speeds as lesser mass.

"the same amount of force would not accelerate you as much on Jupiter as it would on earth." is wrong. That is where you are failing. Reconsider this part, fix your failure, and you will gain insight.

Why is it "wrong?"  How do I "fix" it?  Your first two sentences seem to agree with what I said.  So have your previous posts.  You've already conceded, as I understood you, that it would take more force to accelerate the same object on Jupiter than it would on earth.

In this very post you also say:  "Yes, more force required for greater mass to accelerate to the same speeds as lesser mass."

You have now switched from the question of "distance" to that of speed, but I don't see any difference.  The higher the "speed" that is imparted, the greater the force required.  The greater the speed, the farther it will go before stopping, when subjected to identical "counter forces."

Am I supposed to "fix" my putative error by equating "actual acceleration" with "mass," it that it?

Edited by Moronium
##### Share on other sites

Why is it "wrong?"  How do I "fix" it?  Your first two sentences seem to agree with what I said.  So have your previous posts.

Except for where you seem to think it takes more force on Jupiter

You've already conceded, as I understood you, that it would take more force to accelerate the same object on Jupiter than it would on earth.

Said in plain English this is not the case.

Final warning on trolling.

Am I supposed to "fix" my putative error by equating "actual acceleration" with "mass," it that it?

Yup. Fix it. You are wrong here, there's plenty of different experiments for you to google to see how you are wrong, and most children with a decent science teacher will have seen a few of them.

A=F/M

Basic math: for cases of M=2 (any unit) and F=1(any unit) A=0.5. G(gravitational acceleration) is NOT part of this equation for a reason.

Weight is M in acceleration(G). Weight increases on a spinny cup ride, but the force to move side-side in the spinny cup is the same, it's only trying to get close to center that it's more. Same with being at arbitrary depth of Jupiter fighting against G or surface of earth against G or top of the Himalayas against G, or moon against G. G does not influence M.

Edit: Here, have some visual learning.

Edited by GAHD
##### Share on other sites
• 2 weeks later...

Interesting questions Moronium: The one that caught me was why is not force tantamount to energy; or why isn't force a form of energy? These are my thoughts on the subject.

The water in a reservoir is a form of energy because it is capable of exerting a force upon the generators. So why don't we say 2 million newtons equal a kilowatt hour? And I guess the answer is time.

In order to know how much energy we have we would have to know the quantity of time that the newtons of force were placed upon the generators. And you have to have movement in this period of time. If the generators were locked you could have force all day but no work is being done. So you need force applied for time on a moveable object. Acceleration is the change in velocity over the change in time; so it seems that this formula (F = ma) meets all the requirements. F = mv/t or Ft = mv

After force is applied for a period of time the momentum of the generator is converted into electrical energy.

Most prefer the ½ mv² formula for energy because it tells you (or emphasizes) how far an object with a certain quantity of momentum will rise. At 2 m/sec it will rise 2 units, and at 4 m/sec it will rise 8 units. The rise is the square of the velocity. The rise is potential energy (Nm) so the two formulas work well together.

Once inertia has been overcome the mass itself is capable of exerting force on another object. Once a mass has been forced into motion it can force other objects into motion. Momentum is the only quantity of motion that is conserved in these interactions; but momentum is not considered a form of energy.

##### Share on other sites

Rest Mass is the energy bound into the Strong Nuclear Force along with particles and the energy tied into the Strong Nuclear Force along with particles resists movement as the energy bound into the Strong Nuclear Force and particles has to be moved with the object. Now relative mass is the amount of energy that is gained upon relative movement on the particle or mass, basically as an object moves some of its energy is converted to relative Mass, which also impedes movement. it seems that particles and the Strong Nuclear Force consume more energy to be stable as movement occurs.

please explain the mechanism that allows for motion to get converted into actual physical Mass, whilst still also having the same amount of motion. you get mass in exchange for motion but you get to keep the motion too!

What creates the added mass anyway? Where does it come from?

##### Share on other sites

Mass is not just matter, it's both energy and matter. Energy is mass even though it's made up of massless particles. E=mc2 doesn't convert energy to matter, it equates energy mass to matter mass. It wasn't even designed to do that, it was originally about converting kinetic energy into potential energy if a particle didn't move and just absorbed the energy it's mass (energy not matter) would increase. When you accelerate a particle, you're just adding energy mass to the matter which doesn't increase at all.  E=mc2 is an analogue formula that fails miserably in the digital quantum world of true energy to mass conversion. You can't convert any amount of energy into half a proton. This crap is all Einstein's fault.

Only the insane would suggest that there ever could be a particle that also has no Mass. Or a particle that has no size. such a definition is the descrioption of a "nothing", exactly.  There can be no such thing as Energy Mass. Its an oxymoron.  Energy is a property of matter, it cant have its own little set of properties such as Mass, if it did, it would be MATTER, not Energy.

##### Share on other sites

Only the insane would suggest that there ever could be a particle that also has no Mass. Or a particle that has no size. such a definition is the descrioption of a "nothing", exactly.  There can be no such thing as Energy Mass. Its an oxymoron.  Energy is a property of matter, it cant have its own little set of properties such as Mass, if it did, it would be MATTER, not Energy.

DeBroglie believed a photon had a mass to make the theory of Einstein covariant... but persistent tests have shown that even if a photon had a mass, it would be far smaller then an electron, something like [math]10^{-51}g[/math]. Do we really want to start adjusting physics, when the physics we have been given through Einstein, works much better? There is clearly a distinct difference between mass and the form of a diffused mass (energy). As far as we know, energy is the most free particle in the sense it always follows the speed of light. If you want to construct a theory of a photon having mass, you need to reconstruct Einstein's theory, while being aware of the history of why to this day, we consider it being massless.

For instance, why can a mass not reach light speed? And yet, if a photon had a mass, that now seems a contradiction? Only massless radiation can move at this speed and remains a cosmological invariant for all types of energy.

## 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.