Question from johnreed for PD
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 15:58 On Jul 24, 11:58 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Or for anyone else that has an answer> > > jr wrote>> But if I am incorrect there > > > it has nothing to do with my primary focus. > > Its not the measure of mass in various ways that concerns me. It is > > the definition of mass that is most important especially because we > > require no greater accuracy in that definition than "amount of > > matter". > > PD wrote> > And that is wrong, as I've indicated. > > jr writes> > I have reviewed the responses to my original post, seeking what you > say you have indicated. I find nothing to support what you claim you > have indicated. Saying it is wrong is not sufficient. I do not mind > being wrong having been wrong thousands of times in the past. But just > saying I am wrong is not enough. Please provide the word definition > for mass that amounts to something more than an amount of matter. This > is after all, what Newton provided and Einstein built on. I admit it > is all I have to reference. Thanks. > Have a good time. > johnreed Mass is a property of a physical object or system. It is sometimes referred in freshman chemistry textbooks as "the amount of matter", but then the same textbooks have to recant that in the chapter on isotopes, where it becomes clear that there is more going on. Newton's notion of mass is 400 years old and we've learned some interesting things about matter. An example is light. Light is not matter. Light comes in energy chunks called photons. Interestingly, a single photon does not have mass, but a system of two photons usually DOES. The true test of this claim that mass is the 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. 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. PD
From: thejohnlreed on 26 Jul 2010 23:00 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
From: Uncle Ben on 27 Jul 2010 04:16 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?
From: Androcles on 27 Jul 2010 04:53 "Uncle Ben" <ben(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?
From: Uncle Ben on 27 Jul 2010 05:13
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 |