| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Don1" |
| Date: |
09 Dec 2005 08:06:06 PM |
| Object: |
All mass is the quotient of two variables |
All mass is the quotient of two variables: m=w/g=f/a.
Don
.
|
|
| User: "Joseph Fagan" |
|
| Title: Re: All mass is the quotient of two variables |
10 Dec 2005 05:09:48 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1134180366.609038.95280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
All mass is the quotient of two variables: m=w/g=f/a.
Don
Don,
Thanks for this enlightenment.
I now understand force and acceleration too.
Some force is just a product of mass and aacceleration.
and for free we get a definition of "forever" All time is just some distance
/ velocity
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: All mass is the quotient of two variables |
10 Dec 2005 08:14:20 PM |
|
|
Joseph Fagan wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1134180366.609038.95280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
All mass is the quotient of two variables: m=w/g=f/a.
Don
Don,
Thanks for this enlightenment.
I now understand force and acceleration too.
Some force is just a product of mass and aacceleration.
and for free we get a definition of "forever" All time is just some distance
/ velocity
Joe
No Joe; a period of time is a change in a body's _relative_ position
during the constant passage of time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colleyville Alan" |
|
| Title: Re: All mass is the quotient of two variables |
12 Dec 2005 11:49:58 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1134267260.747634.261250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Joseph Fagan wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1134180366.609038.95280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
All mass is the quotient of two variables: m=w/g=f/a.
Don
Don,
Thanks for this enlightenment.
I now understand force and acceleration too.
Some force is just a product of mass and aacceleration.
and for free we get a definition of "forever" All time is just some
distance
/ velocity
Joe
No Joe; a period of time is a change in a body's _relative_ position
during the constant passage of time.
So if you don't move, you'll live forever?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: All mass is the quotient of two variables |
13 Dec 2005 03:34:01 PM |
|
|
Colleyville Alan wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1134267260.747634.261250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Joseph Fagan wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1134180366.609038.95280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
All mass is the quotient of two variables: m=w/g=f/a.
Don
Don,
Thanks for this enlightenment.
I now understand force and acceleration too.
Some force is just a product of mass and aacceleration.
and for free we get a definition of "forever" All time is just some
distance
/ velocity
Joe
No Joe; a period of time is a change in a body's _relative_ position
during the constant passage of time.
So if you don't move, you'll live forever?
That's impossible of course
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: All mass is the quotient of two variables |
13 Dec 2005 12:12:19 AM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
Joseph Fagan wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1134180366.609038.95280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
All mass is the quotient of two variables: m=w/g=f/a.
Don
Don,
Thanks for this enlightenment.
I now understand force and acceleration too.
Some force is just a product of mass and aacceleration.
and for free we get a definition of "forever" All time is just some distance
/ velocity
Joe
No Joe; a period of time is a change in a body's _relative_ position
during the constant passage of time.
Wrong, dumb donny.
Time is independant of mass or position. [But not velocity or
acceleration, but I doubt you are capable of handling the nuances of
special relativity]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: All mass is the quotient of two variables |
09 Dec 2005 08:30:18 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
All mass is the quotient of two variables: m=w/g=f/a.
No--That ratio is meaning less for most of the mass in
the universe, which is in free fall.
Inertia
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Inertia.html
The resistance to change in state of motion which all matter exhibits.
It's a concept, Shead, not a number with units, not a ratio.
Newton's First Law
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsFirstLaw.html
Also called the "law of inertia," Newton's first law states that a
body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion continues to move
at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.
Newton's Second Law is about "inertial mass"
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsSecondLaw.html
A force F acting on a body gives it an acceleration a which is in
the direction of the force and has magnitude inversely proportional
to the mass m of the body: F = ma
Inertia is an intrinsic property of mass. Most of what follows is
quoted from http://www.physlink.com/ae305.cfm
Gravitational Mass F = GmM/r^2
Inertial Mass F = ma
Acceleration a = dv/dt
1) Inertial mass. This is mainly defined by Newton's law,
the all-too-famous F = ma, which states that when a force
F is applied to an object, it will accelerate
proportionally, and that constant of proportion is the
mass of that object. In very concrete terms, to determine
the inertial mass, you apply a force of F Newtons to an
object, measure the acceleration in m/s^2, and F/a will
give you the inertial mass m in kilograms.
2) Gravitational mass. This is defined by the force of
gravitation, which states that there is a gravitational
force between any pair of objects, which is given by
F = G m1 m2/r^2
where G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2
are the masses of the two objects, and r is the distance
between them. This, in effect defines the gravitational
mass of an object.
As it turns out, these two masses are equal to each other
as far as we can measure. Also, the equivalence of these
two masses is why all objects fall at the same rate on
earth.
The only difference that we can find between inertial and
gravitational mass that we can find is the method.
Gravitational mass is measured by comparing the force of
gravity of an unknown mass to the force of gravity of a
known mass. This is typically done with some sort of
balance scale. The beauty of this method is that no matter
where, or what planet, you are, the masses will always
balance out because the gravitational acceleration on each
object will be the same. This does break down near
supermassive objects such as black holes and neutron stars
due to the high gradient of the gravitational field around
such objects.
Inertial mass is found by applying a known force to an
unknown mass, measuring the acceleration, and applying
Newton's Second Law, m = F/a. This gives as accurate a
value for mass as the accuracy of your measurements. When
the astronauts need to be weighed in outer space, they
actually find their inertial mass in a special chair.
The interesting thing is that, physically, no difference
has been found between gravitational and inertial mass.
Many experiments have been performed to check the values
and the experiments always agree to within the margin of
error for the experiment. Einstein used the fact that
gravitational and inertial mass were equal to begin his
Theory of General Relativity in which he postulated that
gravitational mass was the same as inertial mass and that
the acceleration of gravity is a result of a "valley" or
slope in the space-time continuum that masses "fell down"
much as pennies spiral around a hole in the common
donation toy at your favorite chain store.
.
|
|
|
| User: "odin" |
|
| Title: Re: All mass is the quotient of two variables |
09 Dec 2005 09:00:41 PM |
|
|
All mass is the quotient of two variables: m=w/g=f/a.
No--That ratio is meaning less for most of the mass in
the universe, which is in free fall.
Well, yes, the ratio w/g is useless for determining m where w and g are both
virtually zero, as error in measurement would make the resulting calculation
m indeterminate. But Don1 is not interested in real physics. He is mostly
interested in weighing produce in the super market on a spring balance,
where there is plenty of g to go around. Don't tell him that it is actually
useless there as well, due to the fact that the produce spring balance is
actually calibrated using sample test masses that ultimately test back
against standard masses compared on arm balances. He is happy in his belief
that spring balances are actually calibrated using his goofy formula m=w/g.
I am wondering how he thinks w and g would be measured without the use of a
standard mass! Don1 is such a numb-skulled back-assward twit...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: All mass is the quotient of two variables |
13 Dec 2005 12:09:01 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
All mass is the quotient of two variables: m=w/g=f/a.
Don
Nope. Haven't I already pointed out to you several cases where this is
not true? What did you do with that information? Ignore it?
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Metric mass: The quotient of two variables
The three fundamental Variables and two fundamental Constants of mechanics
Quantum Gravity 96.0: Built-in Phase Differences in Classical vs Quantum Physics By Using Non-Real Complex Variables vs Reals
Is Bohm Hidden Variables discredited or not? How?
Only three independent variables req'd in physics
Quantum Gravity 87.1: Re Prime Variables and Prime Numbers
Re: State variables and their mathematical significance
Grassmann Variables (in Physics)
| hopelessly looking for superselection rules-variables
Causation/Causality, Memory, and Convolution 7: Sums of Variables and Anti-Multiplication
How to generate Mittag-Leffler random variables?
variance of product of uncorrelated variables
Laurent Polynomials, Laurent Series, Probable influence, Complex Variables, Physics 2
Laurent Polynomials, Laurent Series, Probable influence, Complex Variables, Physics
product of 2 independent normally distributed random variables
|
|
|
