Prev: Conjecture or theorem?
Next: Scientific software goes parallel
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 14:32
On Jul 21, 12:53 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> OK I can accept your word on the spring constant horizontal measure
> for mass. I have no quarrel with the fact that mass can be measured in
> a variety of ways. The ways to measure mass are as numerous as their
> are ways to measure resistance. Include a suitable conversion scheme
> for resistance and you have mass. Or even a suitable conversion scheme
> for any quantity the regularity of which can be paralleled to mass.  I
> would guess that the mass spectrograph takes a given amount of mass,
> ignites it and measures the light spectra.

No it does not. And why can you not take the trouble to Google "mass
spectrometer" to find out what it is, rather than guess?

> 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".

And that is wrong, as I've indicated.

> The mathematical convenience of mass, its pragmatic
> mathematical and physical functionality, stops us from seeking any
> greater precision than "an amount of matter".  The focus of physics
> then becomes the application of the working mathematics with respect
> to mass, and the development of physics is eventually left into the
> hands of the theoretical physicist mathematician, where mass is the
> primary initial physical tool, but the mathematics is an open ended
> field enabling any internally consistent fantasy. The scientist seeks
> physical truth. The mathematician seeks truth in numbers.
>
> This reflects our presumption that matter is fundamental and that we
> know what matter is. And mass even becomes synonymous with matter,
> which further supports our assumption that we know what matter is.
> Eventually the thinking process in physics becomes the exclusive
> domain of the mathematician many of whom perpetuate our ignorance and
> are pompous about it.
>
> Mass is consistent with the resistance we work against and it is
> convertible into a number of atoms for quantitative chemical
> reactions. And it is conserved in classical mechanics in general.
> These are crucial clues that can be easily missed simply because of
> our definition for mass. Mass is not an amount of matter. Mass is a
> resistance of matter that we can quantify and measure. What kind of
> matter? Stable and near stable atomic matter.

From: glird on 21 Jul 2010 15:35

On Jul 21, 1:53 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The ways to measure mass are as numerous as their
> are ways to measure resistance. [snip]
> 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". The mathematical convenience of mass, its pragmatic
> mathematical and physical functionality, stops us from seeking any
> greater precision than "an amount of matter". The focus of physics
> then becomes the application of the working mathematics with respect
> to mass, and the development of physics is eventually left into the
> hands of the theoretical physicist mathematician, where mass is the
> primary initial physical tool, but the mathematics is an open ended
> field enabling any internally consistent fantasy. The scientist seeks
> physical truth. The mathematician seeks truth in numbers.

The physicist seeks numerical quantities that can be summarized
in equations,
>
> This reflects our presumption that matter is fundamental and that we
> know what matter is. And mass even becomes synonymous with matter,
> which further supports our assumption that we know what matter is.

We DO know what matter is, in the only possible way: Via direct
sense evidence.

> Eventually the thinking process in physics becomes the exclusive
> domain of the mathematician many of whom perpetuate our ignorance and
> are pompous about it.

Physicists abandoned the primary goal of physics, which was to help
us understand physical reality, i.e the metaphysics. Having done
that, they
perpetuate their own ignorance, pompously claiming that metaphysics
is beneath their dignity.

> Mass is consistent with the resistance we work against and it is
> convertible into a number of atoms for quantitative chemical
> reactions. And it is conserved in classical mechanics in general.
> These are crucial clues that can be easily missed simply because of
> our definition for mass. Mass is not an amount of matter.

Well said, but wrong. Mass IS a quantity of matter. It is
generally
measured by weighing a body. Unfortunately, that gives us its WEIGHT
not its mass. But unstructured non-particulate matter has no weight;
so
weighing it is the wrong way to measure mass.

> Mass is a resistance of matter that we can quantify and measure. What kind of
> matter? Stable and near stable atomic matter.

You are referring to F = ma, in which F is a force and m is measured
in grams.A force is a quantity of net pressure, measured
independently
of the area of application; and m – in grams – is the weight of the
given
mass. What kind of matter has that weight? Atoms do, but the matter
of which they are made does not!
How can that be? Because a gravitational field is a density
gradient
in and of the material filling a local space. That gradient
permeates
and sums with the gradient of any embedded atom. Because an atom
has a very dense layer of matter as part of its construction, any
wave
system circling within it will meet increasingly stronger resistance
to its
motion as it enters a denser region.
It is THAT net pressure, a force, that is the weight per atom.
In atomic reactions some of the matter is released from the reacting
atoms, so the density of the nuclei will be less so the remaining
weight
will also be less. The material so released will have no weight.
That’s
why e = mc^2 works; not because a mass has converted into energy,
but because some of its weight - which is a form of energy - has..

glird
From: thejohnlreed on 21 Jul 2010 22:27
On Jul 21, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:53 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OK I can accept your word on the spring constant horizontal measure
> > for mass. I have no quarrel with the fact that mass can be measured in
> > a variety of ways. The ways to measure mass are as numerous as their
> > are ways to measure resistance. Include a suitable conversion scheme
> > for resistance and you have mass. Or even a suitable conversion scheme
> > for any quantity the regularity of which can be paralleled to mass.  I
> > would guess that the mass spectrograph takes a given amount of mass,
> > ignites it and measures the light spectra.
>
> No it does not. And why can you not take the trouble to Google "mass
> spectrometer" to find out what it is, rather than guess?
>
> > 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".
>
> And that is wrong, as I've indicated.
>
>
>
> > The mathematical convenience of mass, its pragmatic
> > mathematical and physical functionality, stops us from seeking any
> > greater precision than "an amount of matter".  The focus of physics
> > then becomes the application of the working mathematics with respect
> > to mass, and the development of physics is eventually left into the
> > hands of the theoretical physicist mathematician, where mass is the
> > primary initial physical tool, but the mathematics is an open ended
> > field enabling any internally consistent fantasy. The scientist seeks
> > physical truth. The mathematician seeks truth in numbers.
>
> > This reflects our presumption that matter is fundamental and that we
> > know what matter is. And mass even becomes synonymous with matter,
> > which further supports our assumption that we know what matter is.
> > Eventually the thinking process in physics becomes the exclusive
> > domain of the mathematician many of whom perpetuate our ignorance and
> > are pompous about it.
>
> > Mass is consistent with the resistance we work against and it is
> > convertible into a number of atoms for quantitative chemical
> > reactions. And it is conserved in classical mechanics in general.
> > These are crucial clues that can be easily missed simply because of
> > our definition for mass. Mass is not an amount of matter. Mass is a
> > resistance of matter that we can quantify and measure. What kind of
> > matter? Stable and near stable atomic matter.

Hello PD>
We go back a rather long way on these newsgroups. At every point along
the way you have put forward points that I have considered and
responded to. Most of your points have helped me to address areas that
need clarifying one way or another. A mass spectrograph does not merit
the time to spend on investigating it when it is mentioned to support
a concept that has no bearing on the subject I post. However the fact
that you put it forward as an alternative approach to the measure of
mass does require that I point out that I agree there are many ways to
measure mass. Some are direct and meaningful and some are indirect and
meaningful and many are indirect, based on established erroneous
theory, and therefore garbage. The concept of gravitational lensing
and its associated assumptions being a case in point. However I will
now investigate mass spectrometry just in case it holds a key that can
be applied to either my error or my support.

Thank you for that inclusion. Again I have no quarrel with the fact
that we can calculate mass in a variety of ways and that the
calculation can be direct with respect to resistance even with
particles of matter. The problem comes into play when we try to treat
mass resistance as a conserved quantity with respect to the particles.
We must then utilize the least action properties of natural physical
motion itself, where units of energy and momentum are defined
consistent with that motion. Where experimental validity comes from
the least action itself and where we interpret it in units of the
quantities we use to define it.
From: thejohnlreed on 3 Aug 2010 11:46
On Jul 21, 12:35 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 1:53 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The physicist seeks numerical quantities that can be summarized


in equations,
jr writes> No problem with that. Quantification. I want to know what
we are quantifying as well.
> This reflects our presumption that matter is fundamental and that we
> know what matter is. And mass even becomes synonymous with matter,
> which further supports our assumption that we know what matter is.

We DO know what matter is, in the only possible way: Via direct
sense evidence.
jr writes> Recognizing substance will not tell us what type of
substance or what it is composed of. Assuming that substance is made
of substance when all indications are that atoms are near stable or
stable compacted electro-magnetic fields just has us building atoms
out of the packets of energy released or emitted by the atom and the
shards of rubble we acquire with our colliders.
> Eventually the thinking process in physics becomes the exclusive
> domain of the mathematician many of whom perpetuate our ignorance and
> are pompous about it.

Physicists abandoned the primary goal of physics, which was to
help
us understand physical reality, i.e the metaphysics. Having done
that, they
perpetuate their own ignorance, pompously claiming that metaphysics
is beneath their dignity.
jr writes> Its not that dignity is an issue but that the integrity of
science requires that we quantify, verify, comprehend and predict
logical consequences from the data we gather. You can't prove that
fairies exist. You can't show that God exists.
> Mass is consistent with the resistance we work against and it is
> convertible into a number of atoms for quantitative chemical
> reactions. And it is conserved in classical mechanics in general.
> These are crucial clues that can be easily missed simply because of
> our definition for mass. Mass is not an amount of matter.

Well said, but wrong. Mass IS a quantity of matter. It is
generally
measured by weighing a body. Unfortunately, that gives us its
WEIGHT
not its mass.
jr writes> Weight is a quantity that we feel. Like force. We lift an
object and we feel resistance to the force we apply. We say we feel
its weight. OK cool. In order to determine the magnitude of what we
feel we have to compare that object to another standardized object of
such and such a resistance. We use a measuring device the simplest of
which is a two pan balance scale. We place the object in one pan and
we blance both pans where the items we use to balance the object we
lifted have graduated magnitude based on some consistent standard.
Balancing the object we lift against a standard object we lift gives
us a number we can call the weight of an object which we feel. What
the balance scale is doing is comparing masses. Each pan has [g]
acting on it to start. As we increase the magnitude in one pan and
then another and so on until a balance is obtained [g] has not been a
part of the action except in terms of what we feel. The magnitude of
[g] has not changed beyond the miniscule change during the up and
down
action of the scale while it is being balanced. The end result on
balance is not a comparison of [mg]. [g] is not being balanced. The
scale is stationary at one location where [g] acts on each pan
equally. [g] is a constant at that location. Each
mass is being balanced. We balance the mass and we feel the weight.
Weight is subjective but the mass is being compared.
Consider a pure element. Imagine that we can place one atom at a time
in a pan. We have a standard mass in the other pan. We can place one
atom at a time in the pan until it is balanced against the mass in
the
other pan. When you lift either the pan with atoms or the pan with
the
standard mass you feel weight. You feel the combination [mg]. The
balance compares the mass and you feel the weight. The balance scale
feels nothing. All it can do iscompare the mass.
But unstructured non-particulate matter has no weight;
so
weighing it is the wrong way to measure mass.
jr writes> What!!!! You are talking about unstructured non-
particulate
matter with no weight and conclude that using a balance scale is the
wrong way tomeasure mass? Christ this does not look good.
> Mass is a resistance of matter that we can quantify and measure. What kind of
> matter? Stable and near stable atomic matter.

You are referring to F = ma, in which F is a force and m is measured
in grams.A force is a quantity of net pressure, measured
independently
of the area of application;

jr writes> You are defining the universe in terms of what you feel.
What you feel is not fundamental. Mass can be measured in any unit.
Where you lift mass determines the magnitude of [g]. So it is not
independent of the area of application.

and m – in grams – is the weight of the
given
mass.

jr writes>
Mass stays the same under transport. Weight varies.

What kind of matter has that weight? Atoms do, but the matter
of which they are made does not!

jr writes> It appears that a fundamental part of an atom is a proton.
Where a proton remains after the atom gives up an electron. The mass
of a proton is by far the lions share of matter. The proton is stable.
What is true for an atom is also true for a proton. An object floating
in space has no weight. It only has mass. You reference weight and
that is subjective.
Have a good time.
jr

From: PD on 6 Aug 2010 17:24
On Jul 22, 3:49 pm, thejohnlreed <thejohnlr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
>   Physicists abandoned the primary goal of physics, which was to help 
> us understand physical reality, i.e the metaphysics.  Having done 
> that, they 
> perpetuate their own ignorance, pompously claiming that metaphysics 
> is beneath their dignity. 
>

Not beneath their dignity. Just different. "Natural philosophy" used
to embrace the understanding of the world through both empirical and
non-empirical means. Science became defined by the core principles of
the scientific method, which has a strong empirical validation element
that is indispensable to the activity. Since that time (which is to
say, for the last four centuries approximately), metaphysics has
belonged to philosophy and not to science and in particular has dwelt
on inquiry into nature of a non-empirical sort.

I don't object to anyone embarking on a serious metaphysical
examination of the universe, which of course will include the study of
various things that are also examined by science -- such as atoms and
physical properties. But it still isn't science, and a refusal to
validate statements against empirical validation only underscores the
difference.

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