Total Object Mass is the cumulative sum of an object's atoms [Math]

Prev: Conjecture or theorem?
Next: Scientific software goes parallel

From: Dono. on 18 Jul 2010 22:14

On Jul 18, 3:53 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

Imbecile,

In modern physics mass is not additive, only energy and momentum are.
So, for a system of particles:

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.

From: Dono. on 18 Jul 2010 22:18

From: Dono. on 20 Jul 2010 09:02

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.

From: johnlawrencereedjr on 20 Jul 2010 10:45

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) 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: 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

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Conjecture or theorem?
Next: Scientific software goes parallel