Total Object Mass is the cumulative sum of an object's atoms
in [Relativity]
|
From: johnlawrencereedjr on 17 Jul 2010 04:58 On Jul 16, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 11:43 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 11:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 16, 1:27 am, thejohnlreed wrote: > > > >>< When we define mass in terms of a number of atoms, the occult aspect of equal and opposite forces between planet surface objects and planets vanish. The resistance of a planet surface object when defined in terms of weight and quantified in terms of a number of atoms can hardly be set equivalent to the resistance of the atoms composing the planet. > > > > >< The only difficulty with this scheme is that it would imply that the mass of an object would be strictly proportional to the number of atoms. Experimentally, that is wrong. > > > > Please tell us what experiments prove that the weight of a body is > > NOT proportional to the number of atoms. > > It's called binding energy of the molecular bond. > An H2 molecule's mass is not twice the mass of a single hydrogen ion. > jr writes> Your using binding energy in the wrong direction. That energy is a part of the total mass. Binding energy is used to explain the missing total mass in the measure of the separate products of an experiment. It is an accepted patch. The reason force can be defined as equal and opposite wrt to planet surface objects and planets is because "force" begins and ends in our measured effort. Our measured effort will always be equal to the objective resistance we act on, or that acts on us. F=mg and/or F=ma. This does not even imply that mass generates a universal force, unless we assign the force we feel to all inanimate objects based solely on their objective resistance.. We generate the force. Mass provides the resistance we must counter. We feel and generate the force. It begins and ends in our body and effort. To assign the force we feel and generate, to inanimate object resistance is error. In other words when we lift an object the force we exert will always be equal to the object's weight. It's resistance will be equal and opposite to our effort. Our effort is the force. The objective measure of resistance is the weight mg. There is nothing objective about the force we feel except the resistance that causes it. Our effort cannot be generalized to the effort of the planet. Inanimate objects exert no effort. The planet attractor acts on atoms. All atoms fall at the same rate. We lift the cumulative sum of the atoms in an object. The planet attractor pulls on the atoms and we lift the object. We can combine 2 moles of hydrogen with 1 mole of oxygen to build 1 mole of water (pretty near or at least theoretical). A mole is a unit of relative weight directly convertible to a number of atoms for each element (just reverse Avogadro calcs). We balance equations for optimal yield all the time where 2H and H2 reprresent the identical number of atoms. Using a catalyst or electrolysis we break down the stable H2 into the nascent 2H and we balance the equation (chemical balancing) where 2H and H2 add on either side equivalently. > > > > > > Note. In Newton's terms the mass is proportional to (not "equal" to) > > the weight of its atoms. In his mind, an atom is the smallest bit of > > matter and ALL of them are identical. Given that the weight and mass > > of an atom depends on what element it represents, perhaps it would be > > clearer if I said: Please tell us what experiments prove that the > > weight of a body is NOT proportional to the average weight of its > > atoms times the total number of atoms. > > > In my terms, the weight of a body is NOT the same as its mass. To > > find its weight, you weigh it. Since unstructured "dark" matter has > > no weight, however, its mass (amount of matter in it) cannot be found > > by weighing it.
From: Dono. on 17 Jul 2010 11:03 On Jul 17, 1:58 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > jr writes> > Your using binding energy in the wrong direction. That energy is a > part of the total mass. Binding energy is used to explain the missing > total mass in the measure of the separate products of an experiment. Idiot
From: PD on 17 Jul 2010 11:36 On Jul 17, 2:22 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 8:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 1:27 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > When we define mass in terms of a number of atoms, the occult aspect > > > of equal and opposite forces between planet surface objects and > > > planets vanish. The resistance of a planet surface object when defined > > > in terms of weight and quantified in terms of a number of atoms can > > > hardly be set equivalent to the resistance of the atoms composing the > > > planet. > > > > Current web address:http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed > > > > If you respond to this post from a newsgroup other than the above, > > > please send a copy to Randama...(a)yahoo.com, if you want a timely > > > response. Thanks. > > > The only difficulty with this scheme is that it would imply that the > > mass of an object would be strictly propertional to the number of > > atoms. Experimentally, that is wrong. > > jr writes> > In chemistry we are always weighing out a number ofmoles that reduce > to a specific number of atoms (pretty near) by relative weight. I disagree. You are weighing by mass. If you like, compare the weights of 1 mole of carbon-12 and 1 mole of helium-2. By your standard, the former should be exactly 6 times the latter. And yet, if you look in isotopic weight tables, you will find this is not the case. > The > thing is when we have a pure compound or atom the prportionality is > direct. In other words we can calculate the precise number of atoms > (pretty near) from themass of a pure element or compound. The > principle willhold true for all atomic matter and shoulfd be easily > verifiableon analysis.
From: thejohnlreed on 18 Jul 2010 18:50 On Jul 17, 8:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 17, 2:22 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 8:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 16, 1:27 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > When we define mass in terms of a number of atoms, the occult aspect > > > > of equal and opposite forces between planet surface objects and > > > > planets vanish. The resistance of a planet surface object when defined > > > > in terms of weight and quantified in terms of a number of atoms can > > > > hardly be set equivalent to the resistance of the atoms composing the > > > > planet. > > > > > Current web address:http://groups.google.com/group/thejohnreed > > > > > If you respond to this post from a newsgroup other than the above, > > > > please send a copy to Randama...(a)yahoo.com, if you want a timely > > > > response. Thanks. > > > > The only difficulty with this scheme is that it would imply that the > > > mass of an object would be strictly propertional to the number of > > > atoms. Experimentally, that is wrong. > > > jr writes> > > In chemistry we are always weighing out a number ofmoles that reduce > > to a specific number of atoms (pretty near) by relative weight. > > I disagree. You are weighing by mass. > If you like, compare the weights of 1 mole of carbon-12 and 1 mole of > helium-2. By your standard, the former should be exactly 6 times the > latter. > And yet, if you look in isotopic weight tables, you will find this is > not the case. > > I disagree. You are weighing by mass. If you like, compare the weights of 1 mole of carbon-12 and 1 mole of helium-2. By your standard, the former should be exactly 6 times the latter. And yet, if you look in isotopic weight tables, you will find this is not the case. jr writes> You are quibling over known established science. Consider the principle: We have an element that is pure by definition. It consists of one isotope of the element. Each atom of that element will therefore have identical magnitudes of mass (resistance). We weigh an amount of the element (What do we mean by this? We mean that we compare an amount of an element against a standard resistance. We are not measuring a gravitational force). We are balancing the mass of two objects where an attraction is acting on each atom of the object. We feel this attraction only when we are in contact with the planet or accelerating away from the planet. We feel this same force when we accelerate in any direction. In all cases we are feeling the sum total of our atoms when they are in opposition to the attraction acting on them, or in opposition to a state of rest or a state of constant motion. We only acquire a balance when we have matched the resistance of the atoms in one pan with the resistance of the atoms in the other pan. We cannot see this detail so we use mass to quantify the action. The innacuracy in the process is in our mass units not in the physical atomic units that react or resist. We can conclude that the resistance of atoms when quantified in units of mass carries error. On the other hand, when mass is quantified in terms of atoms no error exists. If we have 6.21 x 10^-23 of atoms of all the same element and isotope and they are separate and weigh 1 mole total. When we combine them their resistance is increased from the resistance of one atom by a factor of 6.21 x 10^-23. Any so called binding energy is included in the initial atom and is carried to the total aggregate. So we take half the weight of that element and balance each half against the other. Are you saying that we will lose some miniscule amount of energy enough to hinder our calculation of the number of atoms in each pan? We have had different standards to base the relative weights of elements on. Our degree of accuracy with regard to chemical reaction equations is better than the proportional accuracy of the standard. If you set it up where Hydrogen is 1, or where Oxygen is 16, or where Carbon is 12, the precise mathematical results will vary according to the relative decimal accuracy of the standard element chosen. The mathematical results here are less accurate than the physical results that are rigorously controlled by the atom itself. It makes no sense to hold me to a precision greater than our lack of precision, that does not exist anywhere else in science. The imprecision is one that is inherent in the unit mass. We hijack resistance and nature complies with atoms whose mass (resistance) is conserved. Our idea for a specific number of atoms combining with a specific number of atoms to make a specific compound provides a greater accuracy in terms of the atoms involved, than does the mass measure of those atoms which depends on the accuracy of the balance scale as well as the accuracy of the standard on which we base the relative weights of the atoms and the units we use as the standard of weight. We do not require nano-technology accuracy here with mass since we get that physically with a number of atoms. If we quantify mass in terms of a number of atoms, we need be no more accurate than the accuracy relative weights of elements provide. Nature will take care of the rest. Avogadro's number is huge. Way larger than any margin of error we require in order to show the difference between the resistance of a planet surface object's atoms and the resistance of the number of atoms composing the planet. My mass standard is no more accurate than the standard we successfully use to measure a correct number of atoms in a chemical reaction process. We need not purify the element to the point where it consists of only one isotope. Our chemical reactions will be pretty near precise. Mass is no magical quantity. It represents a resistance. We can measure this resistance on a balance scale in standard quantitative units. Mass is not an amount of matter. It is the measure of the resistance of an amount of matter. An atom is an amount of matter. The resistance of atoms is conserved. Total Mass is conserved. So we have F=mg. Defining mass resistance in terms of its weight as a function of what we call gravity, This works mathematically for us because the resistance of atoms is conserved and mass (that resistance) does not enter into the planet attractor mathematics. It enters into our mathematics because we are planet surface inertial objects. We act on (work against) the mass of an object (including our bodies) where the planet acts on the atoms that compose the object. Therefore the mass of an object is the cumulative resistance of the atoms that make up that object. We feel resistance. We feel what we call weight. We call what we feel a gravitationl force that acts on mass (that acts on us) . A force that causes a resistance that we measure and feel cannot act on the resistance that we measure and feel. If it did, the more resistance we applied the greater the planet would act on it. We wouldn't even need to escape so called light veolcity to avoid a blackhole. A blackhole would be all there is. > > > The > > thing is when we have a pure compound or atom the prportionality is > > direct. In other words we can calculate the precise number of atoms > > (pretty near) from themass of a pure element or compound. The > > principle willhold true for all atomic matter and shoulfd be easily > > verifiableon analysis.
From: thejohnlreed on 18 Jul 2010 18:53
On Jul 17, 8:03 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 17, 1:58 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > jr writes> > > Your using binding energy in the wrong direction. That energy is a > > part of the total mass. Binding energy is used to explain the missing > > total mass in the measure of the separate products of an experiment. > > Idiot jr writes> Altho youstupidity andignorance will never be evident to you, you are insuring that your children and their children will carry this stupidity from you for life. I suggest you refrain from public intellectualforumsuntil you acquire the knowledge to doso. Thinkof your progeny. johnreed |