Question from johnreed for PD
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 27 Jul 2010 10:02 On Jul 26, 10:00 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Mass is a property of a physical object or system. > > jr writes> Yes. The property is conserved resistance. I don't think this works as a good definition, either. See the two- photon example I mentioned earlier, where this is no ability whatsoever to impose an acceleration on this system with an applied force, but there is nonetheless mass. > > It is sometimes > referred in freshman chemistry textbooks as "the amount of matter", > > jr writes> > Recall that I say: Mass is not an amount of matter. Who will agree to > that? I cannot recall ever seeing this as a definition for mass in a > textbook. > > but then the same textbooks have to recant that in the chapter on > isotopes, where it becomes clear that there is more going on. > > jr writes> More going on than mass being an amount of matter. Now that > is an understatement. However, an isotope has mass. An isotope is a > type of matter. An isotope is a component of an element. An element > can consist of many different isotopes. Each isotope is an atom and > has a resistance. Each therefore has a mass. I think you missed my point. > > Newton's > notion of mass is 400 years old and we've learned some interesting > things about matter. > > jr writes> Here you write of Newton's mass as 400 years old, and write > that we have learned more about matter since Newton. You appear to be > referencing matter and mass as a near synonymous interchangeable pair > of words. Sorry, that was a typo. I meant we've learned a lot about mass since Newton. > If your definition for mass was the quantitative measure of > the conserved cumulative resistance of atoms no ambiguity would exist. > Mass is a measure of the resistance of matter. > > An example is light. > > jr writes> You speak of light as though it is a quantity not dependent > on our sense of vision. Do you mean the quantity we detect > illuminating an object. Or do you mean electromagnetic radiation? The > difference is in the fact that we can see the illuminated object but > we can't see EMR (light?). This is wrong. We do not "see" an object directly. We see light (electromagnetic radiation) emitted or scattered from the object. Our eyes are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation within a certain range of frequencies. John, I'm afraid this is all high school physics stuff, nothing new. > > Light is not matter. Light comes in energy chunks > called photons. > > jr writes> Are the magnitude of these energy chunks calculated in > Planck units? You mean EMR comes in those chunks. What if EMR > (frequencies) were chopped up by the atom according to its rules and > then released by the atom according to its rules? Where would photons > be? > > Interestingly, a single photon does not have mass, but > a system of two photons usually DOES. > > jr writes> From two nothings come a something. Nice. Photons are not nothing. But what is important to draw from this is that mass is not an additive property of objects. If you have object A with mass mA and object B with mass mB, the mass of a system containing only A and B will not necessarily be mA+mB. > Energy. Here we > are continuing with the concept of mass, partnered with its least > action consistent cousins, momentum and energy. Where mass is no > longer conserved but we still retain it when dealing with theoretical > partical systems. If we defined mass as the conserved cumulative > resistance of atoms we could avoid this confusion. But we retain mass > in the celestial and the particle realms, where with particles, since > it no longer applies as conserved resistance, it has no other > representation but an un-conserved amount of matter. > > The true test of this claim that mass is the amount of matter > > jr writes> Again recall that I am saying that mass represents the > conserved resistance of matter. Where that resistance does not apply, > mass can only represent a non-conserved amount of matter. > > is to take the same collection of matter (say, the same number of > protons, electrons, and neutrons) and combine them in different ways > and see if it's the same mass every time. You find out pretty easily > that just be rearranging the same matter, you find combinations with > different measurable mass. > > jr writes> You are treating protons, electrons and neutrons as though > they are particles that have a conserved resistance. You are also > assuming that an electron maintains its particle integrity inside the > atom. Where we had to apply Boltzman's statistical approach (which > dealt with atoms) to theoretical internal to the atom particle systems > in order to acquire a probability function for the location of an > assumed internal to the atom, orbiting electron. We took our planet > sun systems right down to atomic structure and appropriated a > statistical math to tell us how it could be if it was. And if this > wasn't subjective enough we have proceeded with this approach and > applied it to the entire universe in conjunction with gravity. In both > areas we define the universe according to the limitations of our > senses utilizing the least action consistent mathematics on a least > action consistent stable universe. And the effectiveness of planet > surface object mass in conjunction with the least action consistent > mathematics has prevented us from recognizing the objects on which > mass applies. > > An example is one molecule of oxygen-16 (16 protons, 16 electrons, 16 > neutrons) and one atom of sulfer-16 (16 protons, 16 electrons, 16 > neutrons). Or, if you like, any equal number of O2 molecules and > sulfer atoms. They will not have the same mass. > > jr writes> > Whatever small variance in their respective resistance we can still > measure a specific number of atoms in units of conserved mass. When we > set this cumulative resistance of a planet surface object's atoms > equal and opposite to the resistance of the planet's atoms the margin > of error in the number of planet surface object atoms is insignificant > when compared to the number of atoms in the planet. > > Have a good time > jr > PD
From: mpc755 on 27 Jul 2010 10:13 On Jul 27, 8:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 8:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 27, 7:53 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 27, 1:16 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 26, 11:00 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You have not explained in anything I have read what is meant by > > > > conserved resistance. Resistance to what? How is it measured? > > > > > Why include "conserved" in the definition? Isn't that an experimental > > > > question? What mass is conserved in the annihilation of particle with > > > > anti-particle? > > > > jr writes> Weight is a quantity that we feel. Like force. We lift an > > > object and we feel resistance to the force we apply. We say we feel > > > its weight. In order to determine the magnitude of what we > > > feel we have to compare that object to another standardized object of > > > such and such a resistance (what we feel and call weight) . We use a > > > measuring device the simplest of > > > which is a two pan balance scale. We place the object in one pan and > > > we blance both pans where the items we use to balance the object we > > > lifted have graduated magnitude based on some consistent standard. > > > > Balancing the object we lift against a standard object we lift gives > > > us a number we can call the weight of an object, which we feel. What > > > the balance scale is doing is comparing mass (resistance). Each pan > > > has [g] > > > acting on it to start. As we increase the magnitude in one pan and > > > then another and so on until a balance is obtained [g] has not been a > > > part of the action except in terms of what we feel. The magnitude of > > > [g] has not changed beyond the miniscule change during the up and > > > down > > > action of the scale while it is being balanced. The end result on > > > balance is not a comparison of [mg]. [g] is not being balanced. Each > > > mass is being balanced. We balance the mass and we feel the weight. > > > Weight is subjective but the mass is being compared. > > > > Consider a pure element. Imagine that we can place one atom at a time > > > in a pan. We have a standard mass in the other pan. We can place one > > > atom at a time in the pan until it is balanced against the mass in > > > the > > > other pan. When we lift either the pan with atoms or the pan with the > > > standard mass we feel weight. We feel the combination [mg]. The > > > balance scale compares the mass (resistance) and we feel the weight. > > > The balance scale > > > feels nothing. All it can do is compare the mass (resistance). > > > Classical atomic mass is conserved. > > > Mass measure here is a comparison of resistance. Conserved resistance.. > > > Current web address:http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed > > > > The Fireside Chat paper at the URL above is probably the fastest way > > > to get a comprehensive handle on my position. > > > Mass is the amount of dark matter displaced per volume. Dark matter is > > displaced by matter. The more massive an object is per volume the less > > dark matter it contains the more dark matter it displaces. An object > > not at rest with respect to the dark matter displaces more dark matter > > then the same object does when at rest with respect to the dark > > matter. > > > The analogy is a bowling ball in a tank of water. A bowling ball at > > rest with respect to the water displaces a certain amount of water. > > Now have the bowling ball roll down a ramp through the water. The > > rolling bowling ball displaces more water than does the stationary > > bowling ball. > > > 'Mainstream' physics mistakes motion with respect to the dark matter > > for an increase in mass. > > Clarification: Mass is the amount of dark matter displaced per volume > of matter at rest with respect to the dark matter. Clarification of the clarification: Mass is the amount of dark matter displaced per volume by matter where the matter and the dark matter are at rest except for the state of the matter and dark matter as determined by their connections (i.e. the displacement itself).
From: mpc755 on 27 Jul 2010 10:30 On Jul 27, 8:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 7:53 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 27, 1:16 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 11:00 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You have not explained in anything I have read what is meant by > > > conserved resistance. Resistance to what? How is it measured? > > > > Why include "conserved" in the definition? Isn't that an experimental > > > question? What mass is conserved in the annihilation of particle with > > > anti-particle? > > > jr writes> Weight is a quantity that we feel. Like force. We lift an > > object and we feel resistance to the force we apply. We say we feel > > its weight. In order to determine the magnitude of what we > > feel we have to compare that object to another standardized object of > > such and such a resistance (what we feel and call weight) . We use a > > measuring device the simplest of > > which is a two pan balance scale. We place the object in one pan and > > we blance both pans where the items we use to balance the object we > > lifted have graduated magnitude based on some consistent standard. > > > Balancing the object we lift against a standard object we lift gives > > us a number we can call the weight of an object, which we feel. What > > the balance scale is doing is comparing mass (resistance). Each pan > > has [g] > > acting on it to start. As we increase the magnitude in one pan and > > then another and so on until a balance is obtained [g] has not been a > > part of the action except in terms of what we feel. The magnitude of > > [g] has not changed beyond the miniscule change during the up and > > down > > action of the scale while it is being balanced. The end result on > > balance is not a comparison of [mg]. [g] is not being balanced. Each > > mass is being balanced. We balance the mass and we feel the weight. > > Weight is subjective but the mass is being compared. > > > Consider a pure element. Imagine that we can place one atom at a time > > in a pan. We have a standard mass in the other pan. We can place one > > atom at a time in the pan until it is balanced against the mass in > > the > > other pan. When we lift either the pan with atoms or the pan with the > > standard mass we feel weight. We feel the combination [mg]. The > > balance scale compares the mass (resistance) and we feel the weight. > > The balance scale > > feels nothing. All it can do is compare the mass (resistance). > > Classical atomic mass is conserved. > > Mass measure here is a comparison of resistance. Conserved resistance. > > Current web address:http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed > > > The Fireside Chat paper at the URL above is probably the fastest way > > to get a comprehensive handle on my position. > > Mass is the amount of dark matter displaced per volume. Dark matter is > displaced by matter. The more massive an object is per volume the less > dark matter it contains the more dark matter it displaces. An object > not at rest with respect to the dark matter displaces more dark matter > then the same object does when at rest with respect to the dark > matter. > > The analogy is a bowling ball in a tank of water. A bowling ball at > rest with respect to the water displaces a certain amount of water. > Now have the bowling ball roll down a ramp through the water. The > rolling bowling ball displaces more water than does the stationary > bowling ball. > > 'Mainstream' physics mistakes motion with respect to the dark matter > for an increase in mass. Clarification: Mass is the amount of dark matter displaced per volume by matter where the matter and the dark matter are at rest except for the state of the matter and dark matter as determined by their connections (i.e. the displacement itself).
From: Uncle Ben on 27 Jul 2010 10:55 On Jul 27, 7:53 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 1:16 am, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 26, 11:00 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > You have not explained in anything I have read what is meant by > > conserved resistance. Resistance to what? How is it measured? > > > Why include "conserved" in the definition? Isn't that an experimental > > question? What mass is conserved in the annihilation of particle with > > anti-particle? > > jr writes> Weight is a quantity that we feel. Like force. We lift an > object and we feel resistance to the force we apply. We say we feel > its weight. In order to determine the magnitude of what we > feel we have to compare that object to another standardized object of > such and such a resistance (what we feel and call weight) . We use a > measuring device the simplest of > which is a two pan balance scale. We place the object in one pan and > we blance both pans where the items we use to balance the object we > lifted have graduated magnitude based on some consistent standard. > > Balancing the object we lift against a standard object we lift gives > us a number we can call the weight of an object, which we feel. What > the balance scale is doing is comparing mass (resistance). Each pan > has [g] > acting on it to start. As we increase the magnitude in one pan and > then another and so on until a balance is obtained [g] has not been a > part of the action except in terms of what we feel. The magnitude of > [g] has not changed beyond the miniscule change during the up and > down > action of the scale while it is being balanced. The end result on > balance is not a comparison of [mg]. [g] is not being balanced. Each > mass is being balanced. We balance the mass and we feel the weight. > Weight is subjective but the mass is being compared. > > Consider a pure element. Imagine that we can place one atom at a time > in a pan. We have a standard mass in the other pan. We can place one > atom at a time in the pan until it is balanced against the mass in > the > other pan. When we lift either the pan with atoms or the pan with the > standard mass we feel weight. We feel the combination [mg]. The > balance scale compares the mass (resistance) and we feel the weight. > The balance scale > feels nothing. All it can do is compare the mass (resistance). > Classical atomic mass is conserved. > Mass measure here is a comparison of resistance. Conserved resistance. > Current web address:http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed > > The Fireside Chat paper at the URL above is probably the fastest way > to get a comprehensive handle on my position. Thanks for the explanation. I would never have guessed! What you call resistance is usually called gravitational force. You say it is conserved. Conservation is a concept defined with respect to a process. What process do you have in mind? Your 'resistance' is not conserved under transport to another planet, or even transport on the earth between Mt. everest and Death Valley. It is not even conserved in the chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. Mass as usually defined is conserved under transport on earth. It is definely not conserved under nuclear fission. I can't find much to recommend in yout new definition. Uncle Ben
From: Uncle Ben on 27 Jul 2010 11:07
On Jul 27, 5:35 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Uncle Ben" <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote in message > > news:a1af8e85-b94a-411e-9d23-01eb2c196ff1(a)j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 27, 4:53 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > > > > > > > "Uncle Ben" <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote in message > > >news:1d8a28a6-8722-4a44-a97d-668e3d58302f(a)h20g2000vbs.googlegroups.com.... > > On Jul 26, 11:00 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Mass is a property of a physical object or system. > > > > jr writes> Yes. The property is conserved resistance. > > > > It is sometimes > > > referred in freshman chemistry textbooks as "the amount of matter", > > > > jr writes> > > > Recall that I say: Mass is not an amount of matter. Who will agree to > > > that? I cannot recall ever seeing this as a definition for mass in a > > > textbook. > > > > but then the same textbooks have to recant that in the chapter on > > > isotopes, where it becomes clear that there is more going on. > > > > jr writes> More going on than mass being an amount of matter. Now that > > > is an understatement. However, an isotope has mass. An isotope is a > > > type of matter. An isotope is a component of an element. An element > > > can consist of many different isotopes. Each isotope is an atom and > > > has a resistance. Each therefore has a mass. > > > > Newton's > > > notion of mass is 400 years old and we've learned some interesting > > > things about matter. > > > > jr writes> Here you write of Newton's mass as 400 years old, and write > > > that we have learned more about matter since Newton. You appear to be > > > referencing matter and mass as a near synonymous interchangeable pair > > > of words. If your definition for mass was the quantitative measure of > > > the conserved cumulative resistance of atoms no ambiguity would exist.. > > > Mass is a measure of the resistance of matter. > > > > An example is light. > > > > jr writes> You speak of light as though it is a quantity not dependent > > > on our sense of vision. Do you mean the quantity we detect > > > illuminating an object. Or do you mean electromagnetic radiation? The > > > difference is in the fact that we can see the illuminated object but > > > we can't see EMR (light?). > > > > Light is not matter. Light comes in energy chunks > > > called photons. > > > > jr writes> Are the magnitude of these energy chunks calculated in > > > Planck units? You mean EMR comes in those chunks. What if EMR > > > (frequencies) were chopped up by the atom according to its rules and > > > then released by the atom according to its rules? Where would photons > > > be? > > > > Interestingly, a single photon does not have mass, but > > > a system of two photons usually DOES. > > > > jr writes> From two nothings come a something. Nice. Energy. Here we > > > are continuing with the concept of mass, partnered with its least > > > action consistent cousins, momentum and energy. Where mass is no > > > longer conserved but we still retain it when dealing with theoretical > > > partical systems. If we defined mass as the conserved cumulative > > > resistance of atoms we could avoid this confusion. But we retain mass > > > in the celestial and the particle realms, where with particles, since > > > it no longer applies as conserved resistance, it has no other > > > representation but an un-conserved amount of matter. > > > > The true test of this claim that mass is the amount of matter > > > > jr writes> Again recall that I am saying that mass represents the > > > conserved resistance of matter. Where that resistance does not apply, > > > mass can only represent a non-conserved amount of matter. > > > > is to take the same collection of matter (say, the same number of > > > protons, electrons, and neutrons) and combine them in different ways > > > and see if it's the same mass every time. You find out pretty easily > > > that just be rearranging the same matter, you find combinations with > > > different measurable mass. > > > > jr writes> You are treating protons, electrons and neutrons as though > > > they are particles that have a conserved resistance. You are also > > > assuming that an electron maintains its particle integrity inside the > > > atom. Where we had to apply Boltzman's statistical approach (which > > > dealt with atoms) to theoretical internal to the atom particle systems > > > in order to acquire a probability function for the location of an > > > assumed internal to the atom, orbiting electron. We took our planet > > > sun systems right down to atomic structure and appropriated a > > > statistical math to tell us how it could be if it was. And if this > > > wasn't subjective enough we have proceeded with this approach and > > > applied it to the entire universe in conjunction with gravity. In both > > > areas we define the universe according to the limitations of our > > > senses utilizing the least action consistent mathematics on a least > > > action consistent stable universe. And the effectiveness of planet > > > surface object mass in conjunction with the least action consistent > > > mathematics has prevented us from recognizing the objects on which > > > mass applies. > > > > An example is one molecule of oxygen-16 (16 protons, 16 electrons, 16 > > > neutrons) and one atom of sulfer-16 (16 protons, 16 electrons, 16 > > > neutrons). Or, if you like, any equal number of O2 molecules and > > > sulfer atoms. They will not have the same mass. > > > > jr writes> > > > Whatever small variance in their respective resistance we can still > > > measure a specific number of atoms in units of conserved mass. When we > > > set this cumulative resistance of a planet surface object's atoms > > > equal and opposite to the resistance of the planet's atoms the margin > > > of error in the number of planet surface object atoms is insignificant > > > when compared to the number of atoms in the planet. > > > > Have a good time > > > jr > > > PD > > > You have not explained in anything I have read what is meant by > > conserved resistance. Resistance to what? How is it measured? > > > Why include "conserved" in the definition? Isn't that an experimental > > question? What mass is conserved in the annihilation of particle with > > anti-particle? > > > ============================================ > > You have not explained in anything I have read what is meant by > > relativistic. Relativistic to what? How is it measured? > > > Why include "relativistic" in the definition? Isn't that an experimental > > question? What mass is relativistic in the approach of particle with > > particle? > > > You have not explained in anything I have read what is meant by > > closing speed. Closing to what? How is it measured? > > > Why include "closing" in the definition? Isn't that an experimental > > question? What speed is closing in the approach of particle with > > particle?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > John, your replies would be more interesting if you made the effort to > compose them with a little originality. Typically you echo the > language with only a few substitutions, often resulting in nonsense. > > You have been told repeatedly the definition of closing speed. You > are apparently incapable of understanding this simple concept. In > Samuel Johnson's words, "Sir, I can give you an argument, but I cannot > give you an uderstanding." > > Uncle Ben > ========================================== > Napoleon Bonehead, your assertions are never interesting and are > always nonsense. > Tell me, which pair of pointers have the closing speed, > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/closing.gif > A) red green, > B) blue red, > C) green blue, > D) all the above > E) none of the above? > Time to run away without answering, Napoleon Bonehead.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - In any of your clever animations pick two points. Measure the velocity of each. Subtract these velocities. The magnitude of the difference is the closing speed of the two points you chose. The concept is most useful when the points are headed for collision. The closing speed allows one to predict the time to collision, as between two Concordes, or a torpedo and the hull of a battleship, or a meteor and the earth. Still too difficult? |