| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Donald G. Shead" |
| Date: |
26 May 2004 04:36:48 PM |
| Object: |
Two traits common to all masses |
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
#2) All matter has inertia: For any particular object; body, or mass
of matter, its inertia is a constant: This constant [m] is the ratio
of the net force [f] exerted on, and/or by it to the acceleration [a]
that is caused: Which constant is also equal to its scaled weight [w]
divided by the acceleration [g] at which it will free fall at the
location of the scale on which it is weighed; anytime, anyplace.
m = f/a = w/g
Inertia is an accurate measure of the quantity of matter in any
object; body, and/or mass of it.
.
|
|
| User: "thomas guild" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
27 May 2004 11:17:31 AM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:48402bae.0405261336.25edc8ab@posting.google.com...
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
#2) All matter has inertia: For any particular object; body, or mass
of matter, its inertia is a constant: This constant [m] is the ratio
of the net force [f] exerted on, and/or by it to the acceleration [a]
that is caused: Which constant is also equal to its scaled weight [w]
divided by the acceleration [g] at which it will free fall at the
location of the scale on which it is weighed; anytime, anyplace.
m = f/a = w/g
Inertia is an accurate measure of the quantity of matter in any
object; body, and/or mass of it.
One point Donald: You equate mass with 'inertia' and also with 'quantity of
matter'. The latter of these is superfluous and misleading, if not plain
wrong. Think of two fundamental particles, say two quarks, of unequal mass.
Their different masses describe their difference in inertia, i.e. resistance
to acceleration. Both are point-like (or arguably string-like) in nature,
and therefore to describe their masses as a measure of how much matter they
contain doesn't make much sense.
For matter in bulk the same comment applies. Mass equals inertia, not
amount of 'stuff'.
TG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
27 May 2004 07:11:38 PM |
|
|
"thomas guild" <tg0101c4166@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Uwotc.22041$vZ5.1240@pathologist.blueyonder.net>...
Cut<
One point Donald: You equate mass with 'inertia' and also with 'quantity of
matter'. The latter of these is superfluous and misleading, if not plain
wrong.
Hey Thomas! It's 'quantity of matter' that _I'm_ talking about:
Merchants and their customers are concerned with quantities of matter,
including length, area and volume; not whether or not it's called
mass, inertia or weight.
Think of two fundamental particles, say two quarks, of unequal mass.
Their different masses describe their difference in inertia, i.e. resistance
to acceleration. Both are point-like (or arguably string-like) in nature,
and therefore to describe their masses as a measure of how much matter they
contain doesn't make much sense.
That's for sure (;^); you'd have a tough time finding and delivering
that little amount of stuff, and finding customers for it too(;^)
For matter in bulk the same comment applies. Mass equals inertia, not
amount of 'stuff'.
Inertia, i.e. resistance to acceleration is a measure of the amount of
stuff i.e. the material substance, or mass that makes up an object;
body, or mass of matter. It's what the customers want. The more for
the money, the merrier(:-)
TG
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas guild" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
28 May 2004 08:17:14 AM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:48402bae.0405271611.44a77411@posting.google.com...
"thomas guild" <tg0101c4166@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Uwotc.22041$vZ5.1240@pathologist.blueyonder.net>...
snip
For matter in bulk the same comment applies. Mass equals inertia, not
amount of 'stuff'.
Inertia, i.e. resistance to acceleration is a measure of the amount of
stuff i.e. the material substance, or mass that makes up an object;
body, or mass of matter. It's what the customers want. The more for
the money, the merrier(:-)
An object's inertia is a measure of an object's inertia and that's all!
Concepts like 'amount of stuff', or 'quantity of matter' are illusions of
the senses; useful in everyday life but less useful when contemplating the
nature of matter at the fundamental level. i.e a bunch of point/string-like
particles with no 'material substance' to them at all in the everyday sense.
Regards
TG
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
27 May 2004 11:10:36 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
Hey Thomas! It's 'quantity of matter' that _I'm_ talking about:
Merchants and their customers are concerned with quantities of matter,
including length, area and volume; not whether or not it's called
mass, inertia or weight.
Mass (fundamental)
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Mass.html
Weight (derived)
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Weight.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
26 May 2004 04:41:19 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Not black hole sigularities
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
26 May 2004 08:51:21 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40B50EFC.8B75873D@mchsi.com>...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Not black hole sigularities
Those are unreal Sam: This is about objects; bodies and masses of real
matter; like merchants sell by the foot, square foot, and pints and
gallons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
26 May 2004 08:56:34 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40B50EFC.8B75873D@mchsi.com>...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Not black hole sigularities
Those are unreal Sam: This is about objects; bodies and masses of real
matter; like merchants sell by the foot, square foot, and pints and
gallons.
No - Mass is mass and black holes certainly have mass.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TMG" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
26 May 2004 09:13:44 PM |
|
|
Donald G. Shead wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40B50EFC.8B75873D@mchsi.com>...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Not black hole sigularities
Those are unreal Sam: This is about objects; bodies and masses of real
matter; like merchants sell by the foot, square foot, and pints and
gallons.
AGAIN - why foot, foot^2, pints, and/or gallons!? Why not Greek units,
ancient Egyptian, or Tybo. Why not metric? Why not random made up units
(average volume of an elephant / average mass of an oak)? Merchants in
my neighborhood (eastern Massachusetts) do not sell by the foot, foot^2,
pints or gallons - the exception being beer and gas (petrol) - but those
are also posted/sold in the metric equals. You're just making this crap up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
26 May 2004 10:47:47 PM |
|
|
Donald G. Shead wrote:
Those are unreal Sam: This is about objects; bodies and masses of real
matter; like merchants sell by the foot, square foot, and pints and
gallons.
Ah, unless you fall into one and get tore apart..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
26 May 2004 04:49:10 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Hey Dumb Donny *****, what is the mass of a Menger-Sierpinski
sponge? It has an arbitrarily large physical extent in all dimensions
but asymptotically zero mass overall.
#2) All matter has inertia:
Hey Dumb Donny *****, tell us the differences among inertial mass,
gravitational mass, active mass, and passive mass, you fucking
imbecile.
[snip idiocy]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
26 May 2004 09:03:55 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<40B510D6.D99897CD@hate.spam.net>...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Cut< what is the mass of a Menger-Sierpinski
sponge? It has an arbitrarily large physical extent in all dimensions
but asymptotically zero mass overall.
You're chemist; what do you know about there being only three physical
dimensions?
#2) All matter has inertia:
Cut< tell us the differences among inertial mass,
gravitational mass, active mass, and passive mass, Cut<
Mass, my dear uncle Dukapuka is a quantity of matter: There is only
one kind of mass, you puke.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
27 May 2004 08:16:00 AM |
|
|
(Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0405261803.303720c8@posting.google.com>...
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<40B510D6.D99897CD@hate.spam.net>...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Cut< what is the mass of a Menger-Sierpinski
sponge? It has an arbitrarily large physical extent in all dimensions
but asymptotically zero mass overall.
You're chemist; what do you know about there being only three physical
dimensions?
#2) All matter has inertia:
Cut< tell us the differences among inertial mass,
gravitational mass, active mass, and passive mass, Cut<
Mass, my dear uncle Dukapuka is a quantity of matter: There is only
one kind of mass, you puke.
You are confusing "intuitive" with "operational definitions" [1].
Newton's definition was an intuitive one, he just replaced an
undefined quantity (mass) with another (matter). This definition was
good enough to proceed with the formulation of laws of Mechanics.
The operational definition is what concerns experimental physicists.
In this context, several different definitions of mass have emerged,
like gravitational and inertial. The equivalence principle postulated
the equality of these two operational definitions. There is also the
hidden postulate of conservation of mass in classical mechanics. These
two have been tested to some very good accuracy. But all those deal
with operational definitions. The intuitive definition you stated
remains in the realm of metaphysics and of no practical significance
to physics.
I suggest you read the introductory chapter of the reference below and
learn about Mach's method of measuring mass ratios.
[1] Donald T. Greenwood, Principles of Dynamics, Prentice-Hall, 1965,
pp. 21-23.
Why are you doing this to yourself?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
27 May 2004 08:59:24 AM |
|
|
Dear Mike:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:9c1b39be.0405270516.f3d9cff@posting.google.com...
dcshead@charter.net (Donald G. Shead) wrote in message
news:<48402bae.0405261803.303720c8@posting.google.com>...
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<40B510D6.D99897CD@hate.spam.net>...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use
their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Cut< what is the mass of a Menger-Sierpinski
sponge? It has an arbitrarily large physical extent in all
dimensions
but asymptotically zero mass overall.
You're chemist; what do you know about there being only three physical
dimensions?
#2) All matter has inertia:
Cut< tell us the differences among inertial mass,
gravitational mass, active mass, and passive mass, Cut<
Mass, my dear uncle Dukapuka is a quantity of matter: There is only
one kind of mass, you puke.
You are confusing "intuitive" with "operational definitions" [1].
Newton's definition was an intuitive one, he just replaced an
undefined quantity (mass) with another (matter). This definition was
good enough to proceed with the formulation of laws of Mechanics.
The operational definition is what concerns experimental physicists.
In this context, several different definitions of mass have emerged,
like gravitational and inertial. The equivalence principle postulated
the equality of these two operational definitions. There is also the
hidden postulate of conservation of mass in classical mechanics. These
two have been tested to some very good accuracy. But all those deal
with operational definitions. The intuitive definition you stated
remains in the realm of metaphysics and of no practical significance
to physics.
I suggest you read the introductory chapter of the reference below and
learn about Mach's method of measuring mass ratios.
[1] Donald T. Greenwood, Principles of Dynamics, Prentice-Hall, 1965,
pp. 21-23.
Why are you doing this to yourself?
I think he's lonely.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
26 May 2004 10:48:23 PM |
|
|
Donald G. Shead wrote:
You're chemist; what do you know about there being only three physical
dimensions?
Well you're an idiot... so what do you know about science?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kirk Gregory Czuhai" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
26 May 2004 08:59:48 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<40B510D6.D99897CD@hate.spam.net>...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Hey Dumb Donny *****, what is the mass of a Menger-Sierpinski
sponge? It has an arbitrarily large physical extent in all dimensions
but asymptotically zero mass overall.
#2) All matter has inertia:
Hey Dumb Donny *****, tell us the differences among inertial mass,
gravitational mass, active mass, and passive mass, you fucking
imbecile.
[snip idiocy]
YEAH! and the electron and neutrinos must have BULKED up last i heard!
and let's not do him any extra credit on his physics exam its not
"imbecile" bot idiot, its not F=ma but F=dp/dt !!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dodik" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
27 May 2004 08:38:40 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Hey Dumb Donny *****, what is the mass of a Menger-Sierpinski
sponge? It has an arbitrarily large physical extent in all dimensions
but asymptotically zero mass overall.
#2) All matter has inertia:
Hey Dumb Donny *****, tell us the differences among inertial mass,
gravitational mass, active mass, and passive mass, you fucking
imbecile.
[snip idiocy]
Uncle Al, take a hike!!! if you want to swear at someone, swear at them
using email, this is a physics newsgroup. Do you mind?
--
Best Regards,
Dodik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
28 May 2004 11:13:19 AM |
|
|
Dodik wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Hey Dumb Donny *****, what is the mass of a Menger-Sierpinski
sponge? It has an arbitrarily large physical extent in all dimensions
but asymptotically zero mass overall.
#2) All matter has inertia:
Hey Dumb Donny *****, tell us the differences among inertial mass,
gravitational mass, active mass, and passive mass, you fucking
imbecile.
[snip idiocy]
Uncle Al, take a hike!!! if you want to swear at someone, swear at them
using email, this is a physics newsgroup. Do you mind?
Science does not tolerate empirical *****. If *you* like the smell, go
for Liberal Arts, theology, religion. management, psychology,
economics... Enviro-whinerism and social advocacy. Meteorology has
gotten pretty good.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
28 May 2004 11:16:50 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Science does not tolerate empirical *****.
I assume you meant un-empirical *****. Science is empirical right down to
the ground.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
26 May 2004 09:33:50 PM |
|
|
In article <48402bae.0405261336.25edc8ab@posting.google.com>,
Donald G. Shead <dcshead@charter.net> wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Except for electrons and other fundamental particles.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
27 May 2004 05:46:16 AM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<c93k2e$19p$5@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <48402bae.0405261336.25edc8ab@posting.google.com>,
Donald G. Shead <dcshead@charter.net> wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Except for electrons and other fundamental particles.
Name one merchandise store where you can buy individual electrons and
other fundamental particles; where you won't have to worry about
falling, or getting sucked into the mass of a black hole(;^)
While you are about it; quote their prices, and colors.
Are quarks more expensive than the rubber ducks who squak them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Double-A" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
27 May 2004 04:01:23 PM |
|
|
(Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0405270246.29ee3c44@posting.google.com>...
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<c93k2e$19p$5@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <48402bae.0405261336.25edc8ab@posting.google.com>,
Donald G. Shead < > wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Except for electrons and other fundamental particles.
Name one merchandise store where you can buy individual electrons and
other fundamental particles;
The Power Company?
where you won't have to worry about
falling, or getting sucked into the mass of a black hole(;^)
Black holes are not sold to minors and require a criminal backround check.
While you are about it; quote their prices, and colors.
Would electrons be sold by the microgram, the microdram, or the electron volt?
Are quarks more expensive than the rubber ducks who squak them?
Quarks come included with all rubber duckies.
Double-A
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
27 May 2004 08:39:18 AM |
|
|
In article <48402bae.0405270246.29ee3c44@posting.google.com>,
Donald G. Shead <dcshead@charter.net> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<c93k2e$19p$5@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <48402bae.0405261336.25edc8ab@posting.google.com>,
Donald G. Shead <dcshead@charter.net> wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Except for electrons and other fundamental particles.
Name one merchandise store where you can buy individual electrons and
other fundamental particles; where you won't have to worry about
falling, or getting sucked into the mass of a black hole(;^)
While you are about it; quote their prices, and colors.
Are quarks more expensive than the rubber ducks who squak them?
What does any of that have to do with metrology?
--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
27 May 2004 04:56:54 AM |
|
|
In article <c93k2e$19p$5@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <48402bae.0405261336.25edc8ab@posting.google.com>,
Donald G. Shead <dcshead@charter.net> wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Except for electrons and other fundamental particles.
Using his logic, also anything sold based on metric units.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Two traits common to all masses |
27 May 2004 09:13:06 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<40b5ca41$0$3124$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
In article <c93k2e$19p$5@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <48402bae.0405261336.25edc8ab@posting.google.com>,
Donald G. Shead <dcshead@charter.net> wrote:
These two traits are common to all masses of matter; by which we
measure their quantity:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Except for electrons and other fundamental particles.
Using his logic, also anything sold based on metric units.
Do you mean metric lengths, areas and volumes cannot be used as
measures of quantity?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
