Prev: Can we detect the bullshit of -c?
Next: Who will stun the world as next Einstein?
From: thejohnlreed on 16 Jul 2010 02:27
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 Randamajor(a)yahoo.com, if you want a timely
response. Thanks.
From: PD on 16 Jul 2010 11:11
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.
From: glird on 16 Jul 2010 12:43
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.

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: PD on 16 Jul 2010 13:29
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.

>
> 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: thejohnlreed on 17 Jul 2010 03:22
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. 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.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Can we detect the bullshit of -c?
Next: Who will stun the world as next Einstein?