0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
Quote from: agyejy on 02/03/2016 22:38:59For 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.I know most of the explanation you just give. What I am not getting is this, we determine the mass of an object by ''weighing'' it on a set of scales. Mass is defined in kilogram. The object on the scales presses down on the scales because of the force of Newtons being applied. The object will press down until the scales ''level'' out. We call the result the mass of the object, you say - ''The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon''How is this possible?You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass, so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?
As I said previously the scales we have here on Earth have been built to work on Earth. The scale measures the force and then uses the known gravitational acceleration on Earth to convert that force to a mass. The scale ceases to report the correct mass when moved to the Moon where the gravitational acceleration is different. It is a problem with how the scale was built. If you adjust the scale to use the gravitational acceleration of the Moon the scale will display the correct mass on the Moon and an incorrect mass on Earth.
Quote from: agyejy on 02/03/2016 23:10:11As I said previously the scales we have here on Earth have been built to work on Earth. The scale measures the force and then uses the known gravitational acceleration on Earth to convert that force to a mass. The scale ceases to report the correct mass when moved to the Moon where the gravitational acceleration is different. It is a problem with how the scale was built. If you adjust the scale to use the gravitational acceleration of the Moon the scale will display the correct mass on the Moon and an incorrect mass on Earth.Just no, everything is based and scaled of the Earth and mainly the physics of the earth. Mass is not a real thing, this is how it reads, mass is measured in Kg, all mass is attracted to mass, equivalent - all kg is attracted to kg. User - what is mass?science - it's the quantity of matter in a body user - matter is the body , huh?science - its measured in kguser - so its the weightscience - no weight is newtonsuser - huh? you are describing the same thing with different names. Science definition is not great, we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter, and we should say that mass is - The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.
added - this is the physics definitionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MassWith the most contradictory statement .''Mass is not the same as weight, even though we often calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight with a spring scale ''So even though we caught a fish and it looks like a fish, it isn't a fish. Makes no sense what so ever....
This is getting to a point where I'm beginning to question your honesty. This concept is amazingly simple and the logic behind it is completely straightforward and easy to follow. Your inability to understand something so simple is either wilful ignorance (for some unfathomable reason) or an act in order to upset people that do understand it.
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2016 23:20:54Quote from: agyejy on 02/03/2016 23:10:11As I said previously the scales we have here on Earth have been built to work on Earth. The scale measures the force and then uses the known gravitational acceleration on Earth to convert that force to a mass. The scale ceases to report the correct mass when moved to the Moon where the gravitational acceleration is different. It is a problem with how the scale was built. If you adjust the scale to use the gravitational acceleration of the Moon the scale will display the correct mass on the Moon and an incorrect mass on Earth.Just no, everything is based and scaled of the Earth and mainly the physics of the earth. Mass is not a real thing, this is how it reads, mass is measured in Kg, all mass is attracted to mass, equivalent - all kg is attracted to kg. User - what is mass?science - it's the quantity of matter in a body user - matter is the body , huh?science - its measured in kguser - so its the weightscience - no weight is newtonsuser - huh? you are describing the same thing with different names. Science definition is not great, we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter, and we should say that mass is - The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter and that the magnitude of the attraction of one object to a second object is directly proportional to the mass of the second object and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the objects. The attraction is the force on the first object due to the second object (or weight of the first object as measured on the second object) and changes based on the mass of the second object and distance between the center of the first object and second object. Once again mass and weight are very different concepts. They are related but distinct.You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn.Quoteadded - this is the physics definitionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MassWith the most contradictory statement .''Mass is not the same as weight, even though we often calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight with a spring scale ''So even though we caught a fish and it looks like a fish, it isn't a fish. Makes no sense what so ever....This is getting to a point where I'm beginning to question your honesty. This concept is amazingly simple and the logic behind it is completely straightforward and easy to follow. Your inability to understand something so simple is either wilful ignorance (for some unfathomable reason) or an act in order to upset people that do understand it.
Quote from: agyejy on 03/03/2016 00:32:32This is getting to a point where I'm beginning to question your honesty. This concept is amazingly simple and the logic behind it is completely straightforward and easy to follow. Your inability to understand something so simple is either wilful ignorance (for some unfathomable reason) or an act in order to upset people that do understand it.This is the game Mr. Box plays, and it's a ruse, a stratagem to lure the unsuspecting into arguments he has no intention of ever surrendering to the facts surrounding the issue. I've finally had to simply ignore him out of frustration and intend to stick to my guns with that goal in mind. I for one, had hoped that he was just confused and tried numerous times to help him understand the error in his judgments. But alas, to no avail. I finally had to surrender to the possibility that he was presenting himself in this fashion to simply further the confusion. After studying many of his posts, I've come to the conclusion that he is not nearly as ignorant as it may first appear. The only conclusion left is that he's doing it on purpose and I've simply had enough of the nonsense.If you intend to continue communication with him, be prepared to deal with the same thing over and over again. Truly, I hope I'm wrong about him and would be delighted if I'm found in error about his agenda. If that be the case, then I wish him all the luck and success in his pursuit of the truth.
This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.
I've finally had to simply ignore him out of frustration and intend to stick to my guns with that goal in mind. The only conclusion left is that he's doing it on purpose and I've simply had enough of the nonsense.
This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter.
Quote from: agyejy on 03/03/2016 00:32:32This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter.FALSE, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself."The word Matter. “Matter” as a term is terribly ambiguous; there isn’t a universal definition that is context-independent. There are at least three possible definitions that are used in various places:“Matter” can refer to atoms, the basic building blocks of what we think of as “material”: tables, air, rocks, skin, orange juice — and by extension, to the particles out of which atoms are made, including electrons and the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of an atom."OR it can refer to what are sometimes called the elementary “matter particles” of nature: electrons, muons, taus, the three types of neutrinos, the six types of quarks — all of the types of particles which are not the force particles (the photon, gluons, graviton and the W and Z particles.) Read here about the known apparently-elementary particles of nature. [The Higgs particle, by the way, doesn’t neatly fit into the classification of particles as matter particles and force particles, which was somewhat artificial to start with; I have a whole section about this classification below.]"OR it can refer to classes of particles that are found out there, in the wider universe, and that on average move much more slowly than the speed of light."With any of these definitions, electrons are matter (although with the third definition they were not matter very early in the universe’s history, when it was much hotter than it is today.) With the second definition, muons are matter too, and so are neutrinos, even though they aren’t constituents of ordinary material. With the third definition, some neutrinos may or may not be matter, and dark matter is definitely matter, even if it turns out to be made from a new type of force particle. I’m really sorry this is so confusing, but you’ve no choice but to be aware of these different usages if you want to know what “matter” means in different people’s books and articles."Source: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/So, practice what you preach: "You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn."
You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass, so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2016 22:56:08You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass, so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?Let's say you were on a spacewalk outside a spacecraft. Far above the earth, you are weightless, and so is the spacecraft. However, if you get in between that spacecraft and something else, you will get crushed by its mass despite the "weightless" conditions. That's the difference between mass and weight.
place a 1 kg object on a set of scales, the scales will show 1 kg of mass at rest, raise the object in the air a couple of meters, drop the object, the scales now reads for an instant an increase in mass.
Here's a better experiment. Take your scale with you on an elevator. Step on it and check your weight. Now, press a button to go up. You now weigh more. Press it again to go down, this time you weigh less. At no point did your mass change.Now, imagine you are on your scale in the elevator, and you don't push a button, but rather, the Earth suddenly increases to double its mass. You will weigh twice as much, even though your mass did not change. You would also feel like the elevator was going up, even though it was standing still.
it is the speed and pressure that crushes you not the mass in that instant,
The statement you made is contradictory.
Quote from: Thebox on 03/03/2016 14:47:12it is the speed and pressure that crushes you not the mass in that instant, Here's a good topic for debate related to what we are talking about, and somewhat related to the thread.I have noticed that people tend to fall into two camps in these forums. Some people say that "foreshortening" is "real," and some say it is not. That is, if you were travelling in a spacecraft approaching the speed of light, you would appear "compressed" or "foreshortened." Some people say that is a real physical effect, and some say it is an "apparent" effect that we seem to see, but that is an illusion, that the whole of spacetime and everything is compressed relative to everything else, so all you would have is everything equally compressed and functional.I fall into the former camp. I think it is real. Remember the elevator? Forget the scale. Get a tape measure. Stand up straight, not on your toes, no cheating. Get a measurement of your height. Now lay down. Take the same measurement, and you will find you are something like 3/4 of an inch longer than you are all tall. The reason is simple. Gravity pulls you down, so all those ligaments and cartilage want to spread out. Stand up, and all the cartilage gets compressed between your head and feet. Now, pressing the elevator buttons, you will find that you are also a little shorter than usual on the way up, and a little taller on the way down.Curiouser and curiouser. Personally, since scientists keep telling me that "gravity equals acceleration," I have come to the opinion that, if I were travelling in an elevator that was going up at some significant fraction of the speed of light, I would most likely be pancake shaped, and that would be my real shape, not an apparent effect an observer would see due to the warping of spacetime. No, I think I would actually be a puddle of soup.
Quote from: Thebox on 03/03/2016 16:45:04The statement you made is contradictory.Look who's talking ...You should know this more than anyone, as you hang around forums like these at least as much as I do. No matter what statement you make, no matter how accurate you try to be, someone is going to rip it apart.Sometimes, that's just because reality is so weird, reality seems to contradict itself. Then, we apply lexically ambiguous languages like English to describe these processes. A good example: Mass and energy are equivalent. True. Mass is not energy. True. Mass is made of energy. True or false, depending on how you look at it.I'm not trying to be an authority on this subject, though I do know a few things about it. Nevertheless, I will probably make even more contradictory statements in the future, and so will you, and so will everyone else because that is the nature of the subject matter, so I don't really understand what you are complaining about here.