Total Object Mass is the cumulative sum of an object's atoms
in [Logic]
|
Prev: A different interpretation for set theory
Next: using the template to prove infinitude of Fibonacci primes, prime-Euclid-numbers and infinitude of Fermat primes #684 Correcting Math
From: PD on 20 Jul 2010 10:51 On Jul 20, 9:45 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD > View profile > More options Jul 19, 7:51 am > On Jul 18, 5:50 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > [a lot of simple misconceptions] > There are lots of ways to measure mass, other than on a pan balance > (either one pan or two pan). You can put a quantity on the end of > anything that has a spring constant and measure the frequency of > oscillation. You can put it at the end of a pendulum and measure the > period. You can put individual ions through a mass spectrometer. (The > last, by the way, is the most common one for determining atomic > masses, especially since it can discriminate between isotopes.) > > jr writes> > That's good information PD. > > Only one of those has anything to do with gravitational pull with the > Earth. > > jr writes> > I would say that the spring oscillations are caused by the spring's > response to the earth attractor (notice I did not say gravity) No sir. The spring oscillator will oscillate the same way sideways. Moreover, it will oscillate the same frequency out in space, far away from the earth. Note too the mass spectrometer. Do you know how those work? Again, no earthly presence involved. > and the > pendulum is also a response to the earth attractor (or any planet or > moon attractor). > > You make numerous comments about precision. Trust me, the precision > in > those measurements is more than enough to show the nonlinearity of > mass in the periodic table. That's where the numbers in the periodic > table come from. > > jr writes> Again this is an inherent problem not with numbers of atoms > that combine in a reaction but with our conversion of the atom amounts > in units based on their conserved resistance. > While we cannot take an unknown compound or mixture (say a scoop of > dirt) and determine a number of atoms and type of atom in the scoop, > on the basis of its total mass as measured on a balance scale, as long > as we know the specific element we are measuring we can determine to a > reasonable accuracy the number of atoms it contains. And if you have a > problem with that we can define the element as consisting of one > isotope. In which case, with regard to that element its mass is a > reasonable determinant on which to calculate the number of atoms. In > principle, what is true in this idealized case should be true even for > the scoop of dirt on chemical analysis, which appears to be possible > according to your good information provided above. > > The lack of linearity in the periodic table in terms of mass has no > bearing on theprinciple I am noting. What ever the degree of error in > the conversion of atoms to mass and vice versa is miniscule compared > to a planet surface object and the planet. So how ever many atoms we > use to represent mass resistance, we can double, triple or quadruple > that number and when set against the resistance of the number of atoms > in the planet, is still on the face absurd. > > Have a good time PD. > jr
From: johnlawrencereedjr on 20 Jul 2010 11:03 On Jul 20, 6:02 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2:28 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > In modern physics mass is not additive, only energy and momentum are. > > So, for a system of particles: > > > jr writes> > > Who has introduced particles here? A system of particles? Show me the > > system of particles. > > Standard crackpot imbecile. > > > E_total=Sum(E_i) > > P_total=Sum(p_i) > > The total mass of the system is : > > M=1/c^2*sqrt(E_total^2-c^2*P_total^2) > > Now, the mass of each particle in the system is : > > m_i=1/c^2*sqrt(E_i^2-c^2*P_i^2) > > Obviously , M is not equal to Sum(m_i). > > Find a different hobby. > > > jr writes> > > The above is your total argument? > > Of course it is, it is beginner physics textbook stuff. Since you are > unable to learn it, I suggest again that you find a different hobby. jr writes> I will state it one more time. Your "amount of matter" definition for mass when applied to the celestial universe and to the atomic universe is like talking about apples and oranges. And even in the classical planet surface case where it is at least proportional with respect to surface planet atoms and our mathematics, mass is not an "amount of matter". Mass is the quantification of the resistance of an amount of matter. An atom is an amount of matter. Mass is the measure of an atom's resistance, or group of atoms resistance. The only justification we have for generalizing planet surface object mass to the celestial universe rests on Newton's written statement that "Since it is true for all the matter that we can measure it is true for all matter whatsoever." paraphrased. This is the 21st century, not the 17th. Have a good time jr..
From: Dono. on 20 Jul 2010 11:06 On Jul 20, 8:03 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 6:02 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 20, 2:28 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In modern physics mass is not additive, only energy and momentum are. > > > So, for a system of particles: > > > > jr writes> > > > Who has introduced particles here? A system of particles? Show me the > > > system of particles. > > > Standard crackpot imbecile. > > > > E_total=Sum(E_i) > > > P_total=Sum(p_i) > > > The total mass of the system is : > > > M=1/c^2*sqrt(E_total^2-c^2*P_total^2) > > > Now, the mass of each particle in the system is : > > > m_i=1/c^2*sqrt(E_i^2-c^2*P_i^2) > > > Obviously , M is not equal to Sum(m_i). > > > Find a different hobby. > > > > jr writes> > > > The above is your total argument? > > > Of course it is, it is beginner physics textbook stuff. Since you are > > unable to learn it, I suggest again that you find a different hobby. > > jr writes> > I will state it one more time. Your "amount of matter" definition for > mass when applied to the celestial universe and to the atomic universe > is like talking about apples and oranges. You are an idiot. Everybody is convinced. No need to keep reasserting it.
From: johnlawrencereedjr on 20 Jul 2010 16:29 On Jul 20, 8:06 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 20, 8:03 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 6:02 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 20, 2:28 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In modern physics mass is not additive, only energy and momentum are. > > > > So, for a system of particles: > > > > > jr writes> > > > > Who has introduced particles here? A system of particles? Show me the > > > > system of particles. > > > > Standard crackpot imbecile. > > > > > E_total=Sum(E_i) > > > > P_total=Sum(p_i) > > > > The total mass of the system is : > > > > M=1/c^2*sqrt(E_total^2-c^2*P_total^2) > > > > Now, the mass of each particle in the system is : > > > > m_i=1/c^2*sqrt(E_i^2-c^2*P_i^2) > > > > Obviously , M is not equal to Sum(m_i). > > > > Find a different hobby. > > > > > jr writes> > > > > The above is your total argument? > > > > Of course it is, it is beginner physics textbook stuff. Since you are > > > unable to learn it, I suggest again that you find a different hobby. > > > jr writes> > > I will state it one more time. Your "amount of matter" definition for > > mass when applied to the celestial universe and to the atomic universe > > is like talking about apples and oranges. > > You are an idiot. Everybody is convinced. No need to keep reasserting > it. jr writes> Well my use of words to explain concepts is infinitely more difficult than your thinking process. With your particle mentality you define matter in terms of matter. Like the universe is based on fundmental bricks, more fiundamental than the atom itself. Atoms repesent stable and near stable forms of matter. Building stable forms of matter from unstable particles of matter is a pandora's box limited only by our capacity to create smaller and smaller atomic shards with our colliders. Destroying a stable electro-magnetic element into unstable pieces of garbage and reconstructing the atom using the shattered pieces of rubble is pitiful cowboy. But you stay on it. jr
From: Dono. on 21 Jul 2010 09:43
On Jul 20, 1:29 pm, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 8:06 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 8:03 am, johnlawrencereedjr <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 20, 6:02 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 20, 2:28 am, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > In modern physics mass is not additive, only energy and momentum are. > > > > > So, for a system of particles: > > > > > > jr writes> > > > > > Who has introduced particles here? A system of particles? Show me the > > > > > system of particles. > > > > > Standard crackpot imbecile. > > > > > > E_total=Sum(E_i) > > > > > P_total=Sum(p_i) > > > > > The total mass of the system is : > > > > > M=1/c^2*sqrt(E_total^2-c^2*P_total^2) > > > > > Now, the mass of each particle in the system is : > > > > > m_i=1/c^2*sqrt(E_i^2-c^2*P_i^2) > > > > > Obviously , M is not equal to Sum(m_i). > > > > > Find a different hobby. > > > > > > jr writes> > > > > > The above is your total argument? > > > > > Of course it is, it is beginner physics textbook stuff. Since you are > > > > unable to learn it, I suggest again that you find a different hobby.. > > > > jr writes> > > > I will state it one more time. Your "amount of matter" definition for > > > mass when applied to the celestial universe and to the atomic universe > > > is like talking about apples and oranges. > > > You are an idiot. Everybody is convinced. No need to keep reasserting > > it. > > jr writes> > Well my use of words to explain concepts is infinitely more difficult > than your thinking process. No, imbcile. The language of physics is math, a language that you clearly don't understand. |