What Is Mass?

[antoine]

 

Readers, I have just made the following report on the preceding post: 

 

"Here we go. This is exactly what he does. There are so many errors and misconceptions packed into this post that it cries out for a reply. But if anyone replies, they will just get enmeshed in a never-ending dialogue, boosted by further (deliberate?) misunderstandings introduced by Theorist (Antoine).

 

This is why this guy was banned from sciforums. "

 

Anyone replying to this sh1t has hereby been duly warned.

 

Again a personal attack.  I quite clearly stated

 

If I am misunderstanding something here, please correct me.

 

 

If I am not interpreting things the same way, please correct my interpretation, quite clearly you are saying I have to think exactly the same as you think. 

[DrKrettin]

Your personal mass being a function of the attractive force of gravity.  A variant under different gravitational magnitudes.  

 

 

 

You get annoyed when I observe that two years ago you did not know the difference between mass and weight, and you still make idiotic statements like this.

[antoine]

You get annoyed when I observe that two years ago you did not know the difference between mass and weight, and you still make idiotic statements like this.

Annoyed? I do not get annoyed anymore.   

 

Ok, if my misinterpretation of personal mass is incorrect , please correct me , what is the cause of my personal mass?  I can measure my mass on a set of scales in kilogram?  What force is applied by me on the scales to give a measurement in kg?

[Buffy]

I am not a part of any club or guys.

Yes, you are, you just don't realize it.

 

 

I would not claim something as such if I did not believe I had presented overwhelming evidence.

Cool. Let's just say there's plenty of reason to believe your judgment is off.

 

Anyway this thread is about what is mass? Do you have any personal ideas of what mass is ?

Interesting that except for answering this vague and general question, you haven't bothered to address it or clarify it at all in this thread.

 

That's a key to understanding why things have gone wrong here.

 

Most unfortunately, your original question *IS* interesting-as I'll get to in a minute-but you've studiously avoided the interesting part. Sad!

 

I would argue mass as kg is the measurement on a set of scales that is equal to the attractive force it is undergoing while at rest in an inertia reference frame?

:umno: The scales are only useful when the other side of the balance contains objects of KNOWN MASS.

 

This demonstrates you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how scales operate.

 

Which of course throws open the question, "if he doesn't understand what a scale is, how can we even try to explain to him what he's asking about?"...along with, "Sounds like he knows this, but his intent is merely to troll."

 

Nice misdirection though. What everyone here is assuming is that that misdirection is intentional. Go ahead. Prove us wrong.

 

Your weight, is the force two things collide at, F=ma²   .  Acceleration being involved in Newtons equation of force where as rest mass the object  is still under acceleration from the force of g, but at rest due to the ground pushes back.   The inertia of the object , the resistance to motion/acceleration, is the same thing as the objects mass when at rest. 

 

I think mass=charge(S)=Newtons of force=gravitational magnitude

This is where everyone starts laughing because you've managed to jump all the way from a copy and paste of a valid definition of weight, to the entirely irrelevant discussion of "charge."

 

At this point you get an "F" on your homework because you've failed to show your work.

 

A body can be a variant in mass but it can not be a variant in energy of the entropy of the body?

...and another astounding leap! Your "overwhelming evidence" here is solely based on your complete misunderstanding of how scales work.

 

No, mass is not variant. At all.

 

Now you've gone off into the weeds here by bringing in terms you've heard like "rest mass" and hinting at the very interesting topic of "dynamical mass" while proving you have no idea what any of that means.

 

I recommend (actually to all of you, as I found it fascinating) a paper by L.B. Okun entitled "The Concept of Mass in the Einstein Year" which pretty much talks about what you're trying to get at in quite a bit of detail.

 

Surprise: Charge has nothing to do with it (although the paper does mention charge in the process of explaining how it is cancelled out in the relevant equations).

 

If I am misunderstanding something here, please correct me.

So, there you go!

 

Seriously, your problem here is that you give *great* examples of how little you know and then pretend you've got the knowledge to up-end 3000 years of physics.

 

It's not pretty. Gets people upset too.

 

You might try humility for a change.

 

You walk into the room with your pencil in your hand, you see somebody naked and you say, "Who is that man?" :phones:

Buffy

[antoine]

[repetition of entire thread deleted for clarity]

If you look back in this thread, the overwhelming evidence I mention was related to the other thread and time dilation semantics.  I do not claim any other truths at this time  other than that particular thread.  I have no idea what mass is so was asking the question in this thread , what is mass?  meaning more than just the property of an object.  I want to know what that property is. 

 

 

In physics, mass is a property of a physical body. It is the measure of an object's resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied.^[1]

 

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass}

 

 

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion; this includes changes to its speed, direction, or state of rest.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

 

 

Firstly to help my understanding and poor misinterpretation, could you please explain the difference in the two sentences I have quoted ? To me these two sentences are saying the same thing? 

Edited August 2, 2017 by antoine

[DrKrettin]

 I can measure my mass on a set of scales in kilogram?  What force is applied by me on the scales to give a measurement in kg?

 

Is that a question? The scales do NOT measure mass - they measure the gravitational force on your body, which is called your weight.

[antoine]

Is that a question? The scales do NOT measure mass - they measure the gravitational force on your body, which is called your weight.

I have been taught that weight F=ma²  (not a copy and paste)   is measured in Newtons, I do not believe I have ever seen a set of scales with Newtons on the dial.  Have I been taught wrongly? 

 

I have a set here that say kg on them. 

 

 

 

The standard International System of Units (SI) unit of mass is the kilogram (kg).

Edited August 2, 2017 by antoine

[Buffy]

If you look back in this thread, the overwhelming evidence I mention was related to the other thread and time dilation semantics.  I do not claim any other truths at this time  other than that particular thread.  I have no idea what mass is so was asking the question in this thread , what is mass?  meaning more than just the property of an object.

 

No sir. It was a general claim about your belief about having found "overwhelming evidence." 

 

That means you might want to work on your command of the English language first. Then maybe some basic rhetoric and logic.

 

 

In physics, mass is a property of a physical body. It is the measure of an object's resistance to acceleration (a change in its state of motion) when a net force is applied.

 

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion; this includes changes to its speed, direction, or state of rest.

Firstly to help my understanding and poor misinterpretation, could you please explain the difference in the two sentences I have quoted ? To me these two sentences are saying the same thing?

 

So now you're "just asking a question" (an excuse I haven't heard since elementary school)...

 

This is important though: you're demonstrating that you do not understand the difference between an object and a property of an object. You might want to look that up.

 

I have been taught that weight F=ma²  (not a copy and paste)   is measured in Newtons, I do not believe I have ever seen a set of scales with Newtons on the dial.  Have I been taught wrongly?

Yes, you have. And if you'd had the ability to comprehend my previous post, you'd understand that.

 

Obviously, you don't.

 

 

 

Certainly it constitutes bad news when the people who agree with you are buggier than batshit, :phones:

Buffy

[antoine]

[needless repetition of entire post deleted for clarity]

I understand the difference between an object and the properties of that object.  An object is a general description of an individual thing, the properties of an object describe the things contained/retained in that thing,  

 

In example an object may have the properties of magnetism,  the properties of the object may be attracted to the properties of other objects. 

 

In the second quote, it says

 

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion

 

 

Objectively should this not be :Inertia is the resistance of any physical properties of an object to any change in its state of motion?

[exchemist]

 

No sir. It was a general claim about your belief about having found "overwhelming evidence." 

 

 

 

 

Certainly it constitutes bad news when the people who agree with you are buggier than batshit, :phones:

Buffy

I see, thanks to Daedelus's response on Antoine's other thread, that Antoine got banned from yet another forum, making at least three now in all, with these words:

 

"I can't continue to put the rest of the membership through the kind of denial hell you inflict on discussions. You're suspended pending staff review, and I'm going to recommend that, because you can't follow the rules we have, we ban you so you can find a place that appreciates your remolding of science. "

 

Sounds very rational to me. 

 

Except that he then came here! 

Edited August 2, 2017 by exchemist

[Buffy]

I understand the difference between an object and the properties of that object.  An object is a general description of an individual thing, the properties of an object describe the things contained/retained in that thing,

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:

 

In example an object may have the properties of magnetism,  the properties of the object may be attracted to the properties of other objects.

:umno: Properties are not "attracted."

This is very confused.

 

Unfortunately, it's not clear you're even trying to understand here.

 

That's the thing that annoys people.

 

So as regards inertia:

 

 

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion

 

Objectively should this not be :Inertia is the resistance of any physical properties of an object to any change in its state of motion?

 

Inertia is, of course, a property of mass itself, not "resistance" to the other "physical properties" of mass.

 

You are obviously not aware of the fact that your statement there is basically gibberish.

 

And that's annoying, something we have a rule against.

 

 

You can pretend to be put-upon and treated unfairly here, but you've confused our tolerance of odd ideas as carte blanche to "innocently" "just ask questions" and then insist the answers are wrong and that you know more than Einstein. 

 

In reality, we allow such behavior to a greater extent than other forums, but only insofar as it serves our purpose to embarrass such trolls in public, make them look foolish and generally put their heads on a pike for others of a similar bent who might wander in here.

 

You've been warned: DBAA. 

 

 

“Were you proposing to shoot these people in cold blood, sergeant?" "Nossir. Just a warning shot inna head, sir.” :phones:

Buffy

[antoine]

[mindless reposting of quote for unknown reasons]

I am confused, are you saying gravity and charge and magnetism are not the properties of an object? 

 

 

 

 Properties are not "attracted.

Edited August 2, 2017 by antoine

[Buffy]

I am confused, are you saying gravity and charge and magnetism are not the properties of matter? 

Hahahahaha!

 

Yes, you are confused.

 

Yes, "gravity," charge and "magnetism" are, in colloquial terms, "properties of matter."

 

So is inertia, which you didn't list there, and inertia and magnetism aren't "attracted" to one another. That's literally what you said, and it totally explains why you're confused. Sad! 

 

 

When people are doing their utmost to upset you, it's probably best to just laugh at them, :phones:

Buffy

[antoine]

[complete copy of the previous post mindlessly included]

What I should have said is that some of the properties of the object are attracted or repulsed by some of the properties of another object?  I stand corrected I was incomplete  with my sentence.  

[Buffy]

What I should have said is that some of the properties of the object are attracted or repulsed by some of the properties of another object?  I stand corrected I was incomplete  with my sentence.  

 

No, that's not what you should have said. "properties" aren't objects that are "attracted or repulsed" by other properties. That literally makes no sense.

 

A property isn't an object. It can't do anything all by itself or even in conjunction with other properties. Properties can explain why an object does something, but the property doesn't do the doing.

 

You have absolutely no idea how clearly this shows you either have little grip on basic definitions of words, or that you're merely trolling to annoy (and hot tip: most of the viewers are sure it's the latter).

 

 

What we've got here is a failure to communicate, :phones:

Buffy

[antoine]

No, that's not what you should have said. "properties" aren't objects that are "attracted or repulsed" by other properties. That literally makes no sense.

 

A property isn't an object. It can't do anything all by itself or even in conjunction with other properties. Properties can explain why an object does something, but the property doesn't do the doing.

 

You have absolutely no idea how clearly this shows you either have little grip on basic definitions of words, or that you're merely trolling to annoy (and hot tip: most of the viewers are sure it's the latter).

 

 

What we've got here is a failure to communicate, :phones:

Buffy

If charge is a property of an object, and opposite charges are attracted, how is that not the property of the object being attracted to a property of a different object? 

 

I was using property in a general context to the different things that have force.  I am certainly not trolling you. 

 

added- I should of wrote , the object property of positive charge is attracted to another objects property of opposite charge ?

Edited August 2, 2017 by antoine

[Buffy]

If charge is a property of an object, and opposite charges are attracted, how is that not the property of the object being attracted to a property of a different object?

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.

 

I was using property in a general context to the different things that have force.

In science, imprecision is the refuge of scoundrels.

 

I am certainly not trolling you.

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