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: johnlawrencereedjr on 16 Jul 2010 02:29 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: 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: 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 |