[guest39538]

When a photon is absorbed by an atom, that atom gains mass. W

I disagree, when the object absorbs a photon it is converted into positive energy ''charging'' the protons making positive ions, these + ions then try to expand and want to annihilate the object by stretching/expanding  the negative bond .

added- the object gains mass not because it gained mass but because it gained anti matter that is then attracted to ground.

[Craig W. Thomson]

When a photon is absorbed by an atom, that atom gains mass. W

I disagree, when the object absorbs a photon it is converted into positive energy ''charging'' the protons making positive ions, these + ions then try to expand and want to annihilate the object by stretching/expanding  the negative bond .

I'm going to let someone else reply for me: "The mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.67353270×10−271.67353270×10−27 kg. If you add the masses of a proton and electron together then they come to 1.67353272×10−271.67353272×10−27 kg. The difference is about 13.6eV, which is the ionisation energy of hydrogen (though note that the experimental error in the masses isn't much less than the difference so this is only approximate).

"This shouldn't surprise you because you have to add energy (in the form of a 13.6eV photon) to dissociate a hydrogen atom into a free proton and electron, and this increases the mass in accordance with Einstein's famous equation E=mc2E=mc2. So this is a direct example of the sort of mass increase you describe.

"However you can't say this is an increase of mass of the electron or the proton. It's an increase in mass of the combined system. The invarient masses of the electron and proton are constants and not affected by whether they're in atoms or roaming freely. The change in mass is coming from a change in the binding energy of the system."

SOURCE: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149744/does-the-mass-of-an-electron-change-with-its-energy-state

REFERENCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy

[guest39538]

added- the object gains mass not because it gained mass but because it gained anti matter that is then attracted to ground.

I think you missed the added part,

added- the object gains mass not because it gained mass but because it gained anti matter that is then attracted to ground making it have more mass which is not really mass,


Your maths means nothing to me sorry, the rational thinking and logic says negative is attracted to negative.


mass is negative

''anti-mass'' is positive.

[guest39538]

I drew it you , just a rough scribble,

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[Craig W. Thomson]

Your maths means nothing to me sorry, the rational thinking and logic says negative is attracted to negative.

What maths? You mean the mass/energy equivalence formula? What rational thinking? What logic? Opposites attract, not the other way around. Are you familiar with magnets? LOL

[guest39538]

Your maths means nothing to me sorry, the rational thinking and logic says negative is attracted to negative.

What maths? What rational thinking? What logic? Opposites attract, not the other way around.

E=mc²  I have still not got my head around the relevance.


Yes opposites attract , but negatives attract negatives.


the arrows represent direction



+→-

-→+

+←→+

-→←-


it is the only possible way it can be.

added - I drew you a better diagram.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[Craig W. Thomson]

E=mc²  I have still not got my head around the relevance.

I'll try to explain it in layman's terms. I'm an amateur at Calculus, so I wouldn't be much help in that area anyway. That equation is about a relationship. Basically, when you confine energy, which wants to travel through space at the speed of light, into a tiny space to become part of a composite particle, that energy is "condensed to a slow vibration" to become mass.

Take a look at this model of a photon:

http://etherdais.pbworks.com/w/page/10174686/f/photon%20planes.jpg

That's a "bit" of energy in a sense. It has no mass. There are two energy components, two energy oscillations in two perpendicular planes, and the photon travels along the intersection of those two planes, which is a line (basically, a "geodesic"). But, the intersection of three planes is a point, not a line. As such, when a photon is absorbed by a "point particle," all that energy travelling at light speed becomes confined to a "point." The photon's 2D energy is converted to 3D mass at that point, the oscillation become restricted in space at the intersection of the 3 planes, and the particle that absorbed it becomes a tiny bit more massive. In a sense, mass is really just a property energy has when it is confined to a location in space as opposed to being allowed to travel through space at light speed.

Lately, I have been entertaining the idea that a photon, or energy in general, is really just a "ripple" in spacetime. When you confine those "ripples" to a location in spacetime at the intersection of three planes, I think the ripples get "tangled up" in a sense. Particles are like "tangles" in the fabric of spacetime. When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, at least in my view of late, gravity is like "tension" applied to the fabric of spacetime by "tangled" particles.

[guest39538]

E=mc²  I have still not got my head around the relevance.

I'll try to explain it in layman's terms. I'm an amateur at Calculus, so I wouldn't be much help in that area anyway. That equation is about a relationship. Basically, when you confine energy, which wants to travel through space at the speed of light, into a tiny space to become part of an atom for any length of time, that energy is "condensed to a slow vibration" to become mass.

Take a look at this model of a photon:

http://etherdais.pbworks.com/w/page/10174686/f/photon%20planes.jpg

That's a "bit" of energy in a sense. It has no mass. There are two energy components travelling along two perpendicular planes. But, the intersection of three planes is a point. As such, when a photon is absorbed by a "point particle," all that energy travelling at light speed becomes confined to a "point." The photon's 2D energy is converted to 3D mass at that point, the oscillation become restricted in space at the intersection of the 3 planes, and the particle that absorbed it becomes a tiny bit more massive.

Lately, I have been entertaining the idea that a photon, or energy in general, is really just a "ripple" in spacetime. When you confine those "ripples" to a location in spacetime at the intersection of three planes, I think the ripples get "tangled up" in a sense. Particles are like "tangles" in the fabric of spacetime. When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, at least in my view of late, gravity is like "tension" applied to the fabric of spacetime by "tangled" particles.

In a similar sort of way I consider atoms are like little capacitors that absorb the photons to store them .    I consider the vibration is the ''clanging'' of quarks . 

50 seconds into this video is a comparative to the ''clanging'' i  mean.

''When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, ''


Isn't that string theory?

[Craig W. Thomson]

''When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, ''

Isn't that string theory?

I would like very much to believe so. I am literally trying to "tie together" all these various disciplines. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, they don't always play so well together. I don't think I'll come up with a GUT or TOE, but it's fun to try.

I'm no expert on string theory, though I've read a couple of books about it by Brian Greene and talked about it some at another forum. Here's my take, if you are interested.

String theory is more like, there's a single type of fundamental particle that all the other fundamental particles are made out of. I liken it to a string on a guitar or piano; music is definitely a helpful analogy here, at least for me.

A string on an instrument can be stretched loosely or tightly. That affects how it vibrates. It can also be a heavy string or light string, which also affects how it vibrates. Different strings have "pitches" that work well together because they are mathematically and harmonically linked. One string is like a single "note." The simplest atom is like three quarks singing a single proton "chord" in harmony using tenor, alto and soprano voices (though they keep switching identies while they are doing so, but that's another story), while an electron rounds out the chord, singing bass. A molecule is a "song." The world we see around us is "music."

[guest39538]

''When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, ''

Isn't that string theory?

I would like very much to believe so. I am literally trying to "tie together" all these various disciplines. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, they don't always play so well together. I don't think I'll come up with a GUT or TOE, but it's fun to try.

I'm no expert on string theory, though I've read a couple of books about it by Brian Greene and talked about it some at another forum. Here's my take, if you are interested.

String theory is more like, there's a single type of fundamental particle that all the other fundamental particles are made out of. I liken it to a string on a guitar or piano; music is definitely a helpful analogy here, at least for me.

A string on an instrument can be stretched loosely or tightly. That affects how it vibrates. It can also be a heavy string or light string, which also affects how it vibrates. Different strings have "pitches" that work well together because they are mathematically and harmonically linked. One string is like a single "note." The simplest atom is like three quarks singing a single proton "chord" in harmony using tenor, alto and soprano voices, while an electron rounds out the chord, singing bass. A molecule is a "song." The world we see around us is "music."

Interesting, I have mentioned before about light being the conductor and the orchestra keep in synchronisation  with the conductor. I have also in my recent thoughts considered the ''tip'' of light, what I call , The Box singularity affect ''tip''  , to be like ''split ends'' .   So I suppose entangled strings ''hidden'' by the box singularity,  with visual split ends would make an interesting thought.

[agyejy]

agyejy: "A free traveling photon has a mass given by m=E/c². The mass of an absorbing atom changes by exactly that amount. Energy does not become mass."

REPLY: E=mc^2 is actually a "relationship," defining E in terms of m and c. When a photon is absorbed by an atom, that atom gains mass. When a photon is emitted, the atom loses mass. In fact, in a particle accelerator, kinetic energy IS CONVERTED TO NEW MASS. So, you are incorrect. Mass does become energy, and vice versa.

This has already been addressed. Mass and energy are two different words for the same property. They also happen to have different units. The equation E = m*c² is nothing but a formula for the conversion of units. Energy does not become mass because energy is mass and mass is energy. The fact that there are two different names for the same property is just a matter of historical ignorance about nature.

agyejy: "Equivalence means things are the same not that one thing can be converted into another."

REPLY: Again, E=mc^2 is a "relationship," saying that every mass has an energy equivalent, and energy has a mass equivalent. Einstein's equation serves to convert units of mass to units of energy; no matter what system of measurement is used, there is still a relationship between the two. In fact, your statement doesn't make sense in terms of basic mathematics. Of course, 3 = 1 + 2 (three is equivalent to one plus two), and you can convert 1 + 2 to 3, but 3 is not "the same" as a 1 and a 2.

Well for starters 3 is the same as 1 + 2 that is what equality means. Beyond that you are now arguing that a length that is expressed in centimeters is not the same thing as an identical length expressed in inches which is clearly absurd. Units of energy and units of mass are just different units to label the same quantity and converting units doesn't change the underlying quantity just like expressing a length in centimeters instead of inches doesn't change the actual length.

agyejy: "When matter and antimatter annihilate you usually get photons that have the property of energy. The energy of the photons (or whatever comes out) is exactly equal to the energy of the particles that annihilated. It just so happens that some of the energy property of the particles was invariant and is generally known by us as the property mass. The particles that annihilated were not made of photons. There annihilation caused a coupling between their particle field and the electromagnetic field (assuming photons were created) and that coupling lead to the destruction of the particles and the creation of brand new never existed photons."

REPLY: You (and I) often speak of photons being "created." Actually, energy cannot be created, OR destroyed. Neither can mass. They can only be CONVERTED from one form to another. This is the First Law of Thermodynamics. It's technically a "new photon," but the "stuff" that makes it up already existed. It was merely converted from mass to energy.

This argument is ridiculous. If took apart of a table and constructed a chair from the pieces I would have created that chair. No sane person would argue that the chair I constructed was not created simply because the pieces existed in another form. There was no photon and then there was a photon hence the photon was created. The fact that the raw material existed beforehand does not change that. Also, as addressed above you cannot convert mass to energy because mass and energy describe the same property.

agyejy: "In a DC current given enough time an electron will travel from one end of a wire to the other. The only thing that keeps this from happening in AC current is the fact that the voltage and thus current switches directions. It has nothing to do with you dominoes analogy."

REPLY: "This is the fundamental difference between something that will carry electricity, and something that wont. It works a lot like dominoes. If you line up 1000 dominoes on end back to back with no space in between (analogous to the plastic) and tap the first domino in line, what will happen? Nothing. The dominoes are not free to move and they just stand there as though nothing happened. Now if you were to line them up again on end, but leave an inch or so between each domino (analogous to the aluminum) and then tap them again, would they just stand there? No, they would obviously fall down, one after another, until the last domino has fallen over at the end of the line.This is exactly how electricity works, and understanding this will make understanding the rest of the topic much easier. Electricity happens when a force moves the first electron on a surface where electrons are free to move, and this moving electron bumps into the next electron, and so on until the last free electron moves, and since the electrons can't fall over, they are instantly ready to repeat this process. If the last electron happens to come in contact with the initial pushing force, the cycle continues until there is no energy left."

SOURCE: http://seaperch.mit.edu/science_electricity.php

That source is atrocious (a website about a deep sea robotics is not a good place to learn about the quantum mechanics of metals). It is trying to use an almost completely classical description for something that is inherently quantum mechanical. I actually tried looking around and most basic explanations of conduction have the same exact problem. The general thing to do is to treat the electrons like they form an ideal gas. In an ideal gas the mean free path is expressed as 1/(π*d²*ρ) where d is the diameter of the particles and ρ is the density of the particles. The density of free electrons in say copper (only the free electrons can conduct) is 8.5*10^28*(1/m^3) the classical radius of an electron (which is definitely too big and generally an electron is thought to not have a radius at all) is about 2.8*10^-15 m giving a diameter of 5.6*10^-15 m. Putting that into the mean free path calculation above says that on average and electron in copper should travel about 12 cm before it hits another electron if we treat the electrons as classical particles. We know that the resistance of a metal wire is directly related to the mean free path of the electrons in the wire. For copper at room temperature we can calculate the actual mean free path of the electrons from actual measured properties with our classical assumptions. When we do this we get a mean free path of electrons in copper of about 40 nm. This number is much much much smaller than 12 cm. Which means that electrons basically always collide with something else (phonons, lattice defects, etc) before they collide with each other or in other words electron-electron collisions cannot explain the conduction of electricity. To put it another way even though the density of the electrons seems high the electrons are actually relatively far apart compared to their size and therefore do not interact. Of course for simplicity we've ignored the uncertainty principle which will change the numbers a bit but will not make up the difference in size between 40 nm and 12 cm.

agyejy: "When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist period."

REPLY: False. It is converted to mass, it only ceases to exist as energy.

The photon always had a mass given by m=E/c^2. It is somewhat difficult (almost impossible) to measure the mass of something moving relative to you. If you try to chase the photon you find that as your speed relative to your initial inertial frame approaches the speed of light the energy of the photon you are chasing approaches zero and therefore so does its mass (assuming you can measure the mass of something moving). This is what is meant when we say a photon has a rest (or invariant) mass or zero. The photon still has a mass it just changes as your velocity changes relative to whatever source created the photon.

I'm going to let someone else reply for me: "The mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.67353270×10−271.67353270×10−27 kg. If you add the masses of a proton and electron together then they come to 1.67353272×10−271.67353272×10−27 kg. The difference is about 13.6eV, which is the ionisation energy of hydrogen (though note that the experimental error in the masses isn't much less than the difference so this is only approximate).

"This shouldn't surprise you because you have to add energy (in the form of a 13.6eV photon) to dissociate a hydrogen atom into a free proton and electron, and this increases the mass in accordance with Einstein's famous equation E=mc2E=mc2. So this is a direct example of the sort of mass increase you describe.

"However you can't say this is an increase of mass of the electron or the proton. It's an increase in mass of the combined system. The invarient masses of the electron and proton are constants and not affected by whether they're in atoms or roaming freely. The change in mass is coming from a change in the binding energy of the system."

SOURCE: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149744/does-the-mass-of-an-electron-change-with-its-energy-state [nofollow]

REFERENCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy [nofollow]

A photon that you see as having 13.6 eV of energy has a mass of 2.42442019*10^-35 kilograms. This holds true as long as you stay in the inertial reference frame where the photon has an energy of 13.6 eV. If you change your inertial reference frame both the energy and mass change because they measure the same physical property.

I'll try to explain it in layman's terms. I'm an amateur at Calculus, so I wouldn't be much help in that area anyway. That equation is about a relationship. Basically, when you confine energy, which wants to travel through space at the speed of light, into a tiny space to become part of a composite particle, that energy is "condensed to a slow vibration" to become mass.

Take a look at this model of a photon:

http://etherdais.pbworks.com/w/page/10174686/f/photon%20planes.jpg [nofollow]

That's a "bit" of energy in a sense. It has no mass. There are two energy components, two energy oscillations in two perpendicular planes, and the photon travels along the intersection of those two planes, which is a line (basically, a "geodesic"). But, the intersection of three planes is a point, not a line. As such, when a photon is absorbed by a "point particle," all that energy travelling at light speed becomes confined to a "point." The photon's 2D energy is converted to 3D mass at that point, the oscillation become restricted in space at the intersection of the 3 planes, and the particle that absorbed it becomes a tiny bit more massive. In a sense, mass is really just a property energy has when it is confined to a location in space as opposed to being allowed to travel through space at light speed.

Lately, I have been entertaining the idea that a photon, or energy in general, is really just a "ripple" in spacetime. When you confine those "ripples" to a location in spacetime at the intersection of three planes, I think the ripples get "tangled up" in a sense. Particles are like "tangles" in the fabric of spacetime. When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, at least in my view of late, gravity is like "tension" applied to the fabric of spacetime by "tangled" particles.

I have previously addressed why all of this is wrong and counter to observations of nature.

I would like very much to believe so. I am literally trying to "tie together" all these various disciplines. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, they don't always play so well together. I don't think I'll come up with a GUT or TOE, but it's fun to try.

String theory is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and relativity therefore by definition string theory must play well with both quantum mechanics and relativity. When someone demonstrates that an idea you come up with violates the observed properties of nature that idea needs to be discarded. Refusing to do so is unscientific and does nothing but prevent a proper understanding of nature and science.

[guest39538]

This has already been addressed. Mass and energy are two different words for the same property.

No they are not,I have already addressed this, ,mass is the same  as  Newtons of force, energy is a group term for various sub groups.


''mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.''

However it is the same thing at relative rest.


Energy - ''power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines.''

[guest39538]

To define in my own terms, mass if the rest force of an object relative to  an inertial reference frame. 

[agyejy]

No they are not,I have already addressed this, ,mass is the same  as  Newtons of force, energy is a group term for various sub groups.

These words when arranged in this manner have no meaning and certainly do not trump the established science of relativity which is supported by over 100 years of experimental verification.

''mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.''

However it is the same thing at relative rest. and also back to front


Energy - ''power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines.''

Those definitions are highly unscientific and based on the old understanding of the nature of energy and matter that predated relativity. Relativity showed us that in truth such distinctions are meaningless and that the only reason we do not observe a change in mass when the energy of a system changes is that or measurements of mass are generally to crude and imprecise to notice. I have said all of this previously. It takes a considerable amount of time for changes in understanding at the forefront of scientific study to filter into the pedagogy of university level courses. For example, a lot of the language used when teaching university level thermodynamics contains vestiges of the theory of caloric which was the supposed substance that was responsible for the phenomena of heat that was last used in the 1800s (i.e. we still talk about heat flowing and heat capacities as if heat is a physical substance). It takes even longer for those changes to filter into high school level science course and actually there is no guarantee they ever will. Therefore it isn't particularly surprising that easily searchable definitions contain anachronistic reasoning that is at odds with current scientific understanding.

To define in my own terms, mass if the rest force of an object in an inertial reference frame.

This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.

[Ethos_]

String theory is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and relativity therefore by definition string theory must play well with both quantum mechanics and relativity. When someone demonstrates that an idea you come up with violates the observed properties of nature that idea needs to be discarded. Refusing to do so is unscientific and does nothing but prevent a proper understanding of nature and science.

I commend you sir for being well studied and physically literate, a welcome addition to the science forum here at TNS. A bit belatedly, I must confess, but I'd like to welcome you to the forum agyejy, ................enjoy!

[guest39538]

String theory is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and relativity therefore by definition string theory must play well with both quantum mechanics and relativity. When someone demonstrates that an idea you come up with violates the observed properties of nature that idea needs to be discarded. Refusing to do so is unscientific and does nothing but prevent a proper understanding of nature and science.

I commend you sir for being well studied and physically literate, a welcome addition to the science forum here at TNS. A bit belatedly, I must confess, but I'd like to welcome you to the forum agyejy, ................enjoy!

He does seem to know  alot.

[guest39538]

This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.

That's what it means though,  mass is the amount of kilos of matter  at rest on the scales.


The matter is still under the influence of gravity , the matter is still in a state of acceleration but at rest applying force of Newtons pushing against the ground. 


Mass -  is the measurement of matters force  while at rest in an inertial reference frame.

[agyejy]

This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.

That's what it means though,  mass is the amount of kilos of matter  at rest on the scales.


The matter is still under the influence of gravity , the matter is still in a state of acceleration but at rest applying force of Newtons pushing against the ground. 


Mass -  is the measurement of matters force  while at rest in an inertial reference frame.

What you are describing is weight. Weight is well known to be a different concept to that of mass. The measured weight of an object depends on the gravitational field in which it is measured. This is why we say things weigh less on the Moon than on Earth.

[guest39538]

This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.

That's what it means though,  mass is the amount of kilos of matter  at rest on the scales.


The matter is still under the influence of gravity , the matter is still in a state of acceleration but at rest applying force of Newtons pushing against the ground. 


Mass -  is the measurement of matters force  while at rest in an inertial reference frame.

What you are describing is weight. Weight is well known to be a different concept to that of mass. The measured weight of an object depends on the gravitational field in which it is measured. This is why we say things weigh less on the Moon than on Earth.

I big to differ, weigh a 1 kilo mass on earth


it will weigh less on the moon .


I know F=ma , if the F=ma is less, the object has less mass.

added - sorry that didn't sound right , my apologies for rushing. 


if there is less force of gravity, there is less newtons, the object will ''weight'' to have less mass.


Drop an object out of  an aeroplane on a set of scales, it will have no mass.

added- imagine your mass is about 45 kilogram, 45 kilogram is a result of the centripetal force pulling you ''into'' the ground while at relative rest mass.


44.145N=45kg

[agyejy]

I big to differ, weigh a 1 kilo mass on earth


it will weigh less on the moon .

That is the point I just made to you. Weight is the force of gravity that acts on an object. Any attempt to define mass as a force is simply a reference to the potential weight of said object. Force and mass are related by the concepts of inertia and gravity but that is all. You cannot use force to define mass.

I know F=ma , if the F=ma is less, the object has less mass.

Not really. The acceleration could also be less. This is what happens when you measure the weight of an object on the Moon when compared to the Earth. On the Moon the force on the object is less because the acceleration is less because the gravitational attraction is less. The mass stays the same. Now if you stay on the Earth and measure the weight of two different objects the one with the smaller mass will produce a smaller weight. Basically if the only piece of information that you have is that the force due to gravity (e.g. weight) is less in one situation than the other you cannot tell if the difference is due to differences in mass or acceleration due to gravity. You need more information like if someone were to tell you the same exact object was used in both situations then you would know the mass would be the same (due to the accepted definition of mass) and thus the change in force due to gravity (e.g. weight) was due to a change in the gravitational acceleration.

if there is less force of gravity, there is less newtons, the object will ''weight'' to have less mass.


Drop an object out of  an aeroplane on a set of scales, it will have no mass.

This is again a confusion of the meaning of weight and the meaning of mass. Weight is proportional to mass and the constant or proportionality is the acceleration of the mass. A scale does not measure mass it measures weight. It does this by measuring the force needed to counteract the force of gravity. If the scale and the object you are trying to weigh are in free-fall the scale will read zero because there are no forces acting between the scale and the object. This does not change the mass of the object.

added- imagine your mass is about 45 kilogram, 45 kilogram is a result of the centripetal force pulling you ''into'' the ground while at relative rest mass.

No it is not. If your mass is 45 kilograms it is 45 kilograms on Earth, on the Moon, and in space far away from any gravitational body. You can measure your mass in space far away from any gravitational body by applying a force to yourself (say via a rocket) and measuring the resulting acceleration. People often become confused because we often quote weight in terms of units of mass. The only reason we can do this is because when on Earth and not accelerating relative to Earth we know the gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/s² and we built that conversion factor into our scales. These scales cease to give accurate readings when they are removed from Earth or are accelerating with respect to Earth.

44.145N=45kg

For starters you are off by a factor of 10. On Earth where gravitational acceleration is roughly 9.81 m/s² an object with a mass of 45 kg produces a force of 441.45 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Earth's surface. On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Moon's surface. The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon. The only difference is the gravitational acceleration and thus the weight.