Does Mass Exist?

[YNM]

12 minutes ago, insert_name said:

I belive this thread was made for @Darnok correct?

 

Ssh... Don't call LOX/LH2 to candle fires...

----------------

Anyway, with einstein tensor takes the medal home with gravitational waves, mass is just one form of energy. Which clearly exist.

 

Edited February 21, 2016 by YNM

[Vanamonde]

Please discuss the thread subject rather than each other. 

[Robotengineer]

Is this even a thread? I expect this sort of thread on the flat earth society forums, but not here. 

[Darnok]

I think OP misunderstood my words in other thread...

Mass is only our interpretation of force that occurs between object and Earth. I said that mass is only a name, invented by humans, for law of nature and that law of nature exists, but mass as name and as property of objects may be misinterpret and may not exist.
We still have no idea what is source of mass or I missed something?

 

22 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

I just nudged a chair.

The chair did not accelerate to the speed of light. 

Therefore, the chair has mass.

Therefore, mass exists.

QED.

Wrong... therefore between chair and Earth exists force that slows down acceleration.

 

19 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

Since when? Who says it might not exist? What's the evidence?

You can't just leave a question like that and say "discuss" without giving us something to actually discuss.

As far as I know science... people that wants to add something new to science must bring evidence of their claims.
Newton didn't done that, he just described model of universe with mass, but without any evidence of what is source of mass or how to measure it directly. He invented mass as property without any evidence and his followers invented some numbers that fits observed behaviour of few objects... but those numbers fail in larger range for example on Mercury.

@Bill Phil volume exists because you can measure it directly, but you can't measure mass directly. You are measuring force or many forces that works on measured object to calculate mass. Just because we can calculate mass doesn't mean it exists as direct property of object, of course you can say that mass is abstract way to make calculations simpler for now.

 

[Bill Phil]

Mass is defined as being a property of matter. If matter exists, mass must exist.

Even if it must be indirectly measured, it still has effects. Without mass, there's no gravity. Our measurements coincide with there being mass.

[peadar1987]

Darnok, you appear to be ignoring the fact that inertial mass exists. If you push something with a known force, easy to measure using a spring, or an electric motor, it does not accelerate to infinity. It exhibits a resistance to acceleration. We call this inertial mass, or sometimes just inertia. this inertia does not depend on friction between the object and the earth. It works on objects in the air, in vacuum chambers, in space or on the moon. It has to, or else things like the acceleration calculations for every one of our spacecraft would be completely wrong (they all use a mass term, and every manoeuvre every spacecraft has ever performed in history has been consistent with the existence of inertial mass).

As for gravitational mass, we can show that in the lab as well. Read about the Cavendish Experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment. This showed the gravitational attraction between two spheres of lead. It was completely consistent with matter attracting matter as a function of the product of their masses and the square of their separation.

[PB666]

22 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

I have absolutely no idea what this thread is supposed to be about.

Abstactly its about semantics and definitions. If you choose to look at the universe for exampl at the classic and relativistic scales then the fact that inertia can be define means that mass exists, somewhat less true with gravity because energy above rest mass can contribute to gravity. But at the quantum scale everything eventually resolves to fields, in which case there are two kinds,mthose that have intrensic mass like quarks, very small amount of the inertia in a nucleus, they get thier masses by interaction with the higgs field. But the majority of the mass of the nucleaus comes from gluons, and they impart mass simply by being in the nucleus and being energetic. 

I would say howver no matter the scale higgs ensures that at least a few types of fields are clenly massive. And secondarily if we cool an atom to 0k, the gluons do not lose  a substantial amount of thier energy, so at least a rational scales this is also mass. 

[sevenperforce]

16 hours ago, Darnok said:

Mass is only our interpretation of force that occurs between object and Earth. I said that mass is only a name, invented by humans, for law of nature and that law of nature exists, but mass as name and as property of objects may be misinterpret and may not exist.
We still have no idea what is source of mass or I missed something?

Wrong... therefore between chair and Earth exists force that slows down acceleration.

@Bill Phil volume exists because you can measure it directly, but you can't measure mass directly. You are measuring force or many forces that works on measured object to calculate mass. Just because we can calculate mass doesn't mean it exists as direct property of object, of course you can say that mass is abstract way to make calculations simpler for now.

Yes, you missed something. A lot of something, actually.

As others have pointed out, Darnok, you are failing to recognize the distinction between gravitational mass and inertial mass. Mass can be measured, not with reference to gravity, but with reference to acceleration after the application of an external force. You seem intent on deriding Newton, apparently because you think his discoveries dealt solely with gravitational mass, but he was the one who came up with the laws of motion, which have nothing to do with gravity. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. Test that on earth, test that in space, test that anywhere in the universe and you will get the same result every time: the acceleration of a given amount of mass is proportional to the force applied to it.

As for the source of mass which you also question, the fact is that we do know where mass comes from. But even if we didn't, it wouldn't call the existence of mass into question.

And while I'm debunking, let me point out that volume is not directly measurable. Area and volume are emergent, constructed properties arising from mathematical manipulation of geometry and length. They are dependent on a series of assumptions about geometry; the formula for area is governed by the local curvature of space and changes based on your choice of geometric frameworks. Euclid, baby.

Nor is length itself directly measurable. Length depends on acceleration and reference frames. Don't believe me? Then explain how you can measure length. Whoops, can't use a ruler, because you don't know how long the ruler is until you measure it first. 

[p1t1o]

If mass doesn't exist, what the  #@*£ are we going to call this....thing, this...this "stuff", that matter has? Because matter definitely has *some* kind of motion-resisting-energy-equating-fitting-in-well-with-rest-of-known-physics property that we get along quite nicely calling "mass".

Don't think mass exists? Fine, call it something else, but its properties will not change at all, so why change the name?

Or do we now need to definitely prove that "matter" is a real phenomenon?

Does mass exist? Doesn't matter [no pun intended]

 

[Darnok]

41 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

If mass doesn't exist, what the  #@*£ are we going to call this....thing, this...this "stuff", that matter has? Because matter definitely has *some* kind of motion-resisting-energy-equating-fitting-in-well-with-rest-of-known-physics property that we get along quite nicely calling "mass".

Don't think mass exists? Fine, call it something else, but its properties will not change at all, so why change the name?

Or do we now need to definitely prove that "matter" is a real phenomenon?

Does mass exist? Doesn't matter [no pun intended]

 

Not necessarily, it might be property of space that is slowing down motion of object/matter, something like liquid is slowing down moving object. It is affecting matter, because object made from matter has structure and size (3 dimensions).

This is not only about name, it is about what really is property of studying object and what is only our invention (misinterpretation).
If we know real properties of matter we should be able to simplify most of our equations and some equations we will be able to throw into garbage.

@peadar1987  Cavendish experiment only proved that while you neutralize largest force (the one between objects and Earth) you can observe and measure smaller forces like the one between balls.

@sevenperforce  ok, I was wrong about volume it is calculated from dimensions... but I can measure each dimension directly. Even without ruler, all I need is rope and it doesn't matter how long it will be, because I can always say that length I measured is 1.3 length of my rope. My unit of length will be 1 rope

 

As for acceleration or any other term you guys said... I have feeling you are using terms that require mass as input, so can we play a game?

Lets say we have two cubes or spheres (pick whatever will be easier) of exact same size (pick some reasonable size for calculations).
One object is made out of pure gold and other is pure iron.
Each case we study in separate laboratory, so there is no interactions between objects, no air and no friction.
Pick value of force you are going to use to push those objects, but in all cases use exact same value.

First case - laboratory on Earth. Use force on gold object and then repeat experiment and use same amount of force on iron object.

Second case - almost empty universe... only thing that is inside that universe is our object. We are making two separate experiments on golden and iron object, so there is no interactions between them.

 

[sevenperforce]

28 minutes ago, Darnok said:

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

If mass doesn't exist, what the  #@*£ are we going to call this....thing, this...this "stuff", that matter has? Because matter definitely has *some* kind of motion-resisting-energy-equating-fitting-in-well-with-rest-of-known-physics property that we get along quite nicely calling "mass".

Not necessarily, it might be property of space that is slowing down motion of object/matter, something like liquid is slowing down moving object. It is affecting matter, because object made from matter has structure and size (3 dimensions).

No.

Nothing is slowing down anything. Mass is force times acceleration; an object which is subjected to a certain force will accelerate unhindered until the force is removed, at which point it will continue moving unhindered, without slowing, until it is subjected to another force. There is no "slowing" involved anywhere in this equation.

The relationship between mass, force, and acceleration is independent of the dimensions of the object. This can be tested in a billion billion ways. A 1-kg object which receives a force of 1 Newton will accelerate at 1 m/s² regardless of whether it is a 2" sphere or an 8' cube.

28 minutes ago, Darnok said:

@sevenperforce  ok, I was wrong about volume it is calculated from dimensions... but I can measure each dimension directly. Even without ruler, all I need is rope and it doesn't matter how long it will be, because I can always say that length I measured is 1.3 length of my rope. My unit of length will be 1 rope

Nope, sorry; won't work. Lay your rope on the ground horizontally, then hold it up vertically. How do you know the rope is the same length when it is vertical as when it is horizontal? You don't. And, in fact, it isn't. If you take the rope to the top of a mountain, it's a different length than it is at sea level. If you get on a plane, then the rope will be a different length at 400 mph than it is at 0 mph.

28 minutes ago, Darnok said:

As for acceleration or any other term you guys said... I have feeling you are using terms that require mass as input, so can we play a game?

Lets say we have two cubes or spheres (pick whatever will be easier) of exact same size (pick some reasonable size for calculations).
One object is made out of pure gold and other is pure iron.
Each case we study in separate laboratory, so there is no interactions between objects, no air and no friction.
Pick value of force you are going to use to push those objects, but in all cases use exact same value.

First case - laboratory on Earth. Use force on gold object and then repeat experiment and use same amount of force on iron object.

Second case - almost empty universe... only thing that is inside that universe is our object. We are making two separate experiments on golden and iron object, so there is no interactions between them.

So...what?

What are you asking?

For one thing, if friction is eliminated, then it doesn't matter whether we're dealing with cubes or spheres.

Let's choose a volume (measured, fyi, using Euclidean geometry, the speed of light, and the frequency of a caesium-133 atom) of 1 cubic meter. Let's choose a force of 1 Newton, measured by an electromagnetic induction motor. Let's use a laser rangefinder to measure the acceleration of each object.

In ALL cases, the iron object will accelerate at 0.127 mm/s² and the gold object will accelerate at 0.05156 mm/s². Without exception.

Edited February 22, 2016 by sevenperforce

[p1t1o]

19 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Not necessarily, it might be property of space that is slowing down motion of object/matter, something like liquid is slowing down moving object. It is affecting matter, because object made from matter has structure and size (3 dimensions).

Makes no difference, at all.

 

22 minutes ago, Darnok said:

This is not only about name, it is about what really is property of studying object and what is only our invention (misinterpretation).
If we know real properties of matter we should be able to simplify most of our equations and some equations we will be able to throw into garbage.

So all you want is a perfect system of science that perfectly explains everything with 100% proof that the concepts you are using to describe the universe exactly matches reality? Is that all? Why didn't you say! Bit of an assumption to say that it would make things simpler, but what the hey...

[peadar1987]

Not necessarily, it might be property of space that is slowing down motion of object/matter, something like liquid is slowing down moving object. It is affecting matter, because object made from matter has structure and size (3 dimensions).

Only it's not, because inertia is independent of size. You can get a piece of metal, bash it into any shape or dimension you want. In a vacuum, it will still have the same inertia. You can make a sphere of alumnium and a sphere of iron with exactly the same dimensions, the iron will have far higher inertia. It's clearly not a function of the geometry of the object.

avendish experiment only proved that while you neutralize largest force (the one between objects and Earth) you can observe and measure smaller forces like the one between balls.

Yes. And the force between the balls was proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Exactly as predicted by the theory of gravity.

As for acceleration or any other term you guys said... I have feeling you are using terms that require mass as input, so can we play a game? 

Lets say we have two cubes or spheres (pick whatever will be easier) of exact same size (pick some reasonable size for calculations).
One object is made out of pure gold and other is pure iron.
Each case we study in separate laboratory, so there is no interactions between objects, no air and no friction.
Pick value of force you are going to use to push those objects, but in all cases use exact same value.

First case - laboratory on Earth. Use force on gold object and then repeat experiment and use same amount of force on iron object.

Second case - almost empty universe... only thing that is inside that universe is our object. We are making two separate experiments on golden and iron object, so there is no interactions between them.

Easy. Use a spring. push the gold object, keeping the spring as a constant elongation. Then repeat for the iron object, keeping the spring at the same elongation. In each case make sure you do not push the spring past its elastic limit. To ensure repeatability you should probably switch back and forth between the two samples a few times. You don't even need to know the force, so long as you pull the spring to the same mark each time.

[p1t1o]

So Darnok, what are your thoughts on the Higgs boson/Higgs field? 

Edited February 22, 2016 by p1t1o

[Darnok]

57 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

No.

Nothing is slowing down anything. Mass is force times acceleration; an object which is subjected to a certain force will accelerate unhindered until the force is removed, at which point it will continue moving unhindered, without slowing, until it is subjected to another force. There is no "slowing" involved anywhere in this equation.

1 The relationship between mass, force, and acceleration is independent of the dimensions of the object. This can be tested in a billion billion ways. A 1-kg object which receives a force of 1 Newton will accelerate at 1 m/s² regardless of whether it is a 2" sphere or an 8' cube.

2 Nope, sorry; won't work. Lay your rope on the ground horizontally, then hold it up vertically. How do you know the rope is the same length when it is vertical as when it is horizontal? You don't. And, in fact, it isn't. If you take the rope to the top of a mountain, it's a different length than it is at sea level. If you get on a plane, then the rope will be a different length at 400 mph than it is at 0 mph.

3 So...what?

What are you asking?

For one thing, if friction is eliminated, then it doesn't matter whether we're dealing with cubes or spheres.

Let's choose a volume (measured, fyi, using Euclidean geometry, the speed of light, and the frequency of a caesium-133 atom) of 1 cubic meter. Let's choose a force of 1 Newton, measured by an electromagnetic induction motor. Let's use a laser rangefinder to measure the acceleration of each object.

In ALL cases, the iron object will accelerate at 0.127 mm/s² and the gold object will accelerate at 0.05156 mm/s². Without exception.

1. You used 1kg (mass) as input to experiment that had to show mass exists... that is why I can say you are relying on mass-model and without it you can't measure mass.

2. It would work just fine. Also bold part is yet another concept that you can't prove, how you measured that rope has different length?

3. I am asking you guys to show me equations that in input will have:
- force
- object with given size and made out of given matter (and all real properties you can measure out of it)

and as result I want evidence for existence of mass... but if you are using mass (or density which is calculated from mass and volume) as input it makes no sense. Saying mass exists because you can calculate it using as input makes no sense, I can say invisible unicorns exists because I can calculate their shape, mass or whatever using them as input.

 

56 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Makes no difference, at all.

It makes everything different

 

54 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

 

4 Only it's not, because inertia is independent of size. You can get a piece of metal, bash it into any shape or dimension you want. In a vacuum, it will still have the same inertia. You can make a sphere of alumnium and a sphere of iron with exactly the same dimensions, the iron will have far higher inertia. It's clearly not a function of the geometry of the object.

 

5 Yes. And the force between the balls was proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Exactly as predicted by the theory of gravity.

 

6 Easy. Use a spring. push the gold object, keeping the spring as a constant elongation. Then repeat for the iron object, keeping the spring at the same elongation. In each case make sure you do not push the spring past its elastic limit. To ensure repeatability you should probably switch back and forth between the two samples a few times. You don't even need to know the force, so long as you pull the spring to the same mark each time.

4. Then it is function of geometry... but not object only its atoms, since atoms of gold and iron are different.
5. Nope, that didn't proved existence of mass only existence of force between balls.
It is like... you have two apples and you bought two more. How many apples do you have now?
2+2, 2*2, sqrt(16), 2² all equations gives you same correct result. But only one of those methods is correct way to calculate it. All others methods are numerology or misinterpretation

6. Ok, but if you would be able to build container, where you can disable all forces, and make same experiment with object in liquid... it would give you same results.
So how do you know you are measuring mass and not behaviour of studying object in "liquid" (made from particles we haven't discovered yet)?

 

Edited February 22, 2016 by Darnok

[WinkAllKerb'']

he' saying he's just passing by the thread because you summoned him/her, then he/she go back doin' something else because you're not to that point yet ; )

[Darnok]

13 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

So Darnok, what are your thoughts on the Higgs boson/Higgs field? 

Quantum physics doesn't exist, so any discovery made using it doesn't exists... or it is mislabeled misinterpretation that confuses real properties of matter and energy with behaviour of matter, energy and structures made by both.

[Evanitis]

58 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

So all you want is a perfect system of science that perfectly explains everything with 100% proof that the concepts you are using to describe the universe exactly matches reality? Is that all? Why didn't you say! Bit of an assumption to say that it would make things simpler, but what the hey...

Wait... did you just imply that the present system of science is imperfect? Are you suggesting that our definition of mass not necessarily fits perfectly the actual mechanic how the universe works?
That was a tricky question - that's the very first thing they teach about the scientific method. That something doesn't become a universal truth, just because it's true in every observed case. Yet, in order to operate, study or construct in the scientific system, one needs to accept the axioms and unrefuted theories as 'truth'. I feel the difference between a 'universally existing property' and 'the 'best scientific definition for a property' is purely semantic.

I should vacate this thread before someone thinks I disagree with him. I'm just a layman. And questioning if stuff exists or not is a nice way to get stoned.

[p1t1o]

35 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Quantum physics doesn't exist, so any discovery made using it doesn't exists... or it is mislabeled misinterpretation that confuses real properties of matter and energy with behaviour of matter, energy and structures made by both.

 

41 minutes ago, Darnok said:

 

It would work just fine. Also bold part is yet another concept that you can't prove, how you measured that rope has different length?

 

It makes everything different

 

 

 

Quote

As far as I know science... people that wants to add something new to science must bring evidence of their claims.

 

Quote

[Some bull@#£% about the speed of light]

 

Quote

Wrong...

Goodbye troll.

[sevenperforce]

28 minutes ago, Darnok said:

1. You used 1kg (mass) as input to experiment that had to show mass exists... that is why I can say you are relying on mass-model and without it you can't measure mass.

No, you are being a touch daft. A 1-kg test mass was an example. The experimental design used to measure mass (which, as I stated before, comprises a force-application mechanism and a laser-interferometer-based acceleration-measurement mechanism) yields the same results regardless of the dimensions of a given test object. It does not "rely on mass-model".

I have no idea whether you accept or even understand the basic principles on which science operates, but here's how it works: you create a hypothesis, and then you devise a test, the predicted outcome of which can be used to confirm or deny that hypothesis, and then you conduct that test.

• Hypothesis (the idea being tested): Objects possess an intrinsic property independent of their external dimensions, conveniently referred to as "mass", which causes them to undergo acceleration in proportion to the force applied to them.
• Experiment (how we are testing the idea): Apply a range of forces to an object and measure the object's acceleration. Then, alter the object's external dimensions by crushing, stretching, or any other means, and repeat.
• Prediction (how we'll know for sure): If the acceleration changes in proportion to force, either with changes in force or changes in external dimensions, then mass is not an intrinsic property. If the acceleration remains the same in proportion to force across changes in force and external dimensions, then mass is an intrinsic property independent of external dimensions.
• Test outcome: Do the test. You'll see that the acceleration changes in proportion to force regardless of the amount of force or the external dimensions of the object.

49 minutes ago, Darnok said:

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

2 hours ago, Darnok said:

I can measure each dimension directly. Even without ruler, all I need is rope and it doesn't matter how long it will be, because I can always say that length I measured is 1.3 length of my rope. My unit of length will be 1 rope

Won't work. Lay your rope on the ground horizontally, then hold it up vertically. How do you know the rope is the same length when it is vertical as when it is horizontal? You don't. And, in fact, it isn't. If you take the rope to the top of a mountain, it's a different length than it is at sea level. If you get on a plane, then the rope will be a different length at 400 mph than it is at 0 mph.

2. It would work just fine. Also bold part is yet another concept that you can't prove, how you measured that rope has different length?

I can measure it, but that's not important right now, because you're the one claiming that external dimensions are intrinsic to objects. The burden of proof is on you to show that length can be measured consistently across any axis. As it turns out, you cannot...because it cannot. But it's on you to prove that you can, not me to prove that you can't (even though I could easily) because you're the one making the claim.

54 minutes ago, Darnok said:

3. I am asking you guys to show me equations that in input will have:
- force
- object with given size and made out of given matter (and all real properties you can measure out of it)

and as result I want evidence for existence of mass... but if you are using mass (or density which is calculated from mass and volume) as input it makes no sense. Saying mass exists because you can calculate it using as input makes no sense, I can say invisible unicorns exists because I can calculate their shape, mass or whatever using them as input.

Your word salad is insufficiently obfuscatory of the foolishness of your ramblings.

You want evidence for the existence of mass? You want to know how to measure it independent of density? No problem. Place any object on a frictionless surface and measure the amount of force required to accelerate it at a rate of 1 m/s². The amount of force it took in Newtons is the mass of the object in kilograms.

See, you don't even need the size or material. You just need to measure force and acceleration. Which is precisely what you'd expect if mass is independent of dimensions or material.

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

1 hour ago, peadar1987 said:

Use a spring. push the gold object, keeping the spring as a constant elongation. Then repeat for the iron object, keeping the spring at the same elongation. In each case make sure you do not push the spring past its elastic limit. To ensure repeatability you should probably switch back and forth between the two samples a few times. You don't even need to know the force, so long as you pull the spring to the same mark each time.

6. Ok, but if you would be able to build container, where you can disable all forces, and make same experiment with object in liquid... it would give you same results.
So how do you know you are measuring mass and not behaviour of studying object in "liquid" (made from particles we haven't discovered yet)?

No, it would not give you the same results. If you conduct the experiment with the objects suspended in liquid, you will see a damping factor enter the equation, yielding different results. 

[peadar1987]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

1. You used 1kg (mass) as input to experiment that had to show mass exists... that is why I can say you are relying on mass-model and without it you can't measure mass.

2. It would work just fine. Also bold part is yet another concept that you can't prove, how you measured that rope has different length?

3. I am asking you guys to show me equations that in input will have:
- force
- object with given size and made out of given matter (and all real properties you can measure out of it)

and as result I want evidence for existence of mass... but if you are using mass (or density which is calculated from mass and volume) as input it makes no sense. Saying mass exists because you can calculate it using as input makes no sense, I can say invisible unicorns exists because I can calculate their shape, mass or whatever using them as input.

 

It makes everything different

 

4. Then it is function of geometry... but not object only its atoms, since atoms of gold and iron are different.
5. Nope, that didn't proved existence of mass only existence of force between balls.
It is like... you have two apples and you bought two more. How many apples do you have now?
2+2, 2*2, sqrt(16), 2² all equations gives you same correct result. But only one of those methods is correct way to calculate it. All others methods are numerology or misinterpretation

6. Ok, but if you would be able to build container, where you can disable all forces, and make same experiment with object in liquid... it would give you same results.
So how do you know you are measuring mass and not behaviour of studying object in "liquid" (made from particles we haven't discovered yet)?

 

4. Also not true. A proton has roughly the same inertial mass as a hydrogen atom, in spite of the hydrogen atom being far, far larger.

5. So there is a force between the balls, which is directly proportional to their inertial mass, as measured by how hard it is to accelerate them. Yeah that's just gravity.

6. Because inertial mass is independent of velocity.

[Darnok]

 

37 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Goodbye troll.

I know how it looks, but you can't deny existence of one physical property like mass and say that you won't have change any equation that has constant speed of light or time in it.

 

4 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

4. Also not true. A proton has roughly the same inertial mass as a hydrogen atom, in spite of the hydrogen atom being far, far larger.

5. So there is a force between the balls, which is directly proportional to their inertial mass, as measured by how hard it is to accelerate them. Yeah that's just gravity.

6. Because inertial mass is independent of velocity.

 

4. But they have different properties... because matter is structure+energy.

5. Then your answer for calculating amount of apples would be sqrt(16)=4? You are 100% correct, but somehow even 10 year old child would say you are wrong

6. Where I said anything about velocity?

 

[peadar1987]

4. They do have different properties. Different charge, for one. Different shape. Different chemical properties. But they have almost identical inertia, which means that resistance to acceleration is not based on geometric parameters.

5. *sigh* no. There are several reasons why there could be an observed force between the spheres. It is trivial to eliminate them by performing more tests, with different geometries, separations, masses, densities. The same relationship will always hold. The force will always be proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the separation. And bear no relation to any other property of the spheres.

6. Because if the resistance to acceleration was created by interacting with particles, a faster-moving object would encounter more particles, and its inertia would increase.

[WinkAllKerb'']

6(bis): what's the ratio of boson inside a black hole core // outside ? i need a serious result here ; ) send someone there NOW ... tsss tsss ... preferably a scientist with all acerted knowledges and certitudes just in case it could crush all of them in piece ; )

 

hey pssst don't forget to recover the backlog ...

Edited February 22, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[Darnok]

33 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

1. No, you are being a touch daft. A 1-kg test mass was an example. The experimental design used to measure mass (which, as I stated before, comprises a force-application mechanism and a laser-interferometer-based acceleration-measurement mechanism) yields the same results regardless of the dimensions of a given test object. It does not "rely on mass-model".

2. I can measure it, but that's not important right now, because you're the one claiming that external dimensions are intrinsic to objects. The burden of proof is on you to show that length can be measured consistently across any axis. As it turns out, you cannot...because it cannot. But it's on you to prove that you can, not me to prove that you can't (even though I could easily) because you're the one making the claim.

3. Your word salad is insufficiently obfuscatory of the foolishness of your ramblings.

You want evidence for the existence of mass? You want to know how to measure it independent of density? No problem. Place any object on a frictionless surface and measure the amount of force required to accelerate it at a rate of 1 m/s². The amount of force it took in Newtons is the mass of the object in kilograms.

See, you don't even need the size or material. You just need to measure force and acceleration. Which is precisely what you'd expect if mass is independent of dimensions or material.

4. No, it would not give you the same results. If you conduct the experiment with the objects suspended in liquid, you will see a damping factor enter the equation, yielding different results. 

 

1. So I can say that 1000 atoms of gold is going to create exact same force no matter in what shape I will forge them... but that doesn't prove existence of mass as source of that force. You can say it does, but I can say it proves that space is interacting with those atoms.

2. As I said I can measure object size using even simple rope (accuracy of such measurement is not important it is only example, you can use rope made of single layer of atoms if you wish).
How you measured that rope changes its size?

3. So what is Newton?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units wiki says it is "Derived units", so please do not use it. If you want to prove that mass exists, because to use Newton you need mass first.

4. Depends on "liquid", it was example like with apples.