Jump to content
Lan Todak

Something's wrong with the way we calculate mass

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

Why we calculate total mass of a subject?

Why? So that we know the total mass.

Quote

Something's wrong with the way we calculate mass

!

Moderator Note

Do I need to move this to Speculations? Do you have an alternative theory you are proposing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

Why we calculate total mass of a subject?

So we know the total resistance to inertia change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange has already answered your question.

Why do you think there is something wrong with the way we calculate mass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass of what? Mass of small things is measured on weigh. Mass of uniform things is calculated from average density muliplied by volume of an object. e.g. mass of the all oceans can be calculated from volume, obtained from depth maps, muliplied by density 1 kg/L. Mass of astronomical objects like planets is calculated from gravitational acceleration of an object.

Mass of macroscopic objects is sum of masses of constituents. Measure mass of single average grain of sand, calculate volume of a beach, and you will know average quantity of grains. The same is with atoms. Therefore we can convert mass to moles in chemistry.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let say if i had a golden rod,1000000 km in width and 1 km in diameter. Could you calculate gravity at the center of that rod?

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why? So that we know the total mass.

!

Moderator Note

Do I need to move this to Speculations? Do you have an alternative theory you are proposing?

 

maybe later... since i did not purpose any theory yet. 

length*

Edited by Lan Todak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

Let say if i had a golden rod,1000000 km in width and 1 km in diameter. Could you calculate gravity at the center of that rod?

Yes. Apply Newton's law to it.

Symmetry indicates that it's zero. (any dV I pick has a partner equidistant from the center and in the exact opposite direction)

What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. Apply Newton's law to it.

Symmetry indicates that it's zero. (any dV I pick has a partner equidistant from the center and in the exact opposite direction)

What's your point?

How about at the ends of the rod?would you get some values? what happened if you split the rod into 2 identical rods. so that the center became 2 new ends. would that give you values instead of zero referring of your result? just answer my questions first then i will let you know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Mass of what? Mass of small things is measured on weigh. Mass of uniform things is calculated from average density muliplied by volume of an object. e.g. mass of the all oceans can be calculated from volume, obtained from depth maps, muliplied by density 1 kg/L. Mass of astronomical objects like planets is calculated from gravitational acceleration of an object.

Mass of macroscopic objects is sum of masses of constituents. Measure mass of single average grain of sand, calculate volume of a beach, and you will know average quantity of grains. The same is with atoms. Therefore we can convert mass to moles in chemistry.

This being a relativity thread, it could, and generally would, be greater than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Yes. Apply Newton's law to it.

Symmetry indicates that it's zero. (any dV I pick has a partner equidistant from the center and in the exact opposite direction)

What's your point?

You need to plot the value into a graph. from the center to the ends of the rod. you will get zero to asymptotically zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lan Todak said:

How about at the ends of the rod?would you get some values? what happened if you split the rod into 2 identical rods. so that the center became 2 new ends. would that give you values instead of zero referring of your result? just answer my questions first then i will let you know...

At the end of the rod you will get the integrated value of M/r^2

Any scenario with the symmetry I described will give you zero.

19 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

You need to plot the value into a graph. from the center to the ends of the rod. you will get zero to asymptotically zero.

No, you will get zero at the center, and a nonzero value away from center. I expect it will be a maximum at the end of the rod, since that situation would have the most, and closest, mass contributing to the net result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
4 hours ago, Sensei said:

Mass of macroscopic objects is sum of masses of constituents.

This being a relativity thread, it could, and generally would, be greater than that.

How do you figure it would be greater? You must have conservation of mass+energy. Since we're talking about only mass, the energy of an object or a system of "constituents" wouldn't matter (and is unspecified anyway). I thought maybe you meant there is some new particle that only exists when other particles are combined, like maybe gluons, but those are likely massless. For your statement to be true, I figure either you'd have to have different constituents when an object is considered as a whole vs as parts, or you'd have to change the mass of individual constituents??? What makes up the difference in mass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, md65536 said:

You must have conservation of mass+energy

Exactly !
You cannot combine the three quark constituents of a proton without their binding.
The individual masses of the three quarks would be equivalent to a couple of percent of the mass of the proton.
It is the binding energy equivalence that makes up the vast majority of the proton's mass.

That is what JC was alluding to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, swansont said:

At the end of the rod you will get the integrated value of M/r^2

Any scenario with the symmetry I described will give you zero.

No, you will get zero at the center, and a nonzero value away from center. I expect it will be a maximum at the end of the rod, since that situation would have the most, and closest, mass contributing to the net result.

How atoms knew that they were farther away from the center? Does atom have such indicator to indicate coordinates?   

21 hours ago, Sensei said:

Mass of what? Mass of small things is measured on weigh. Mass of uniform things is calculated from average density muliplied by volume of an object. e.g. mass of the all oceans can be calculated from volume, obtained from depth maps, muliplied by density 1 kg/L. Mass of astronomical objects like planets is calculated from gravitational acceleration of an object.

Mass of macroscopic objects is sum of masses of constituents. Measure mass of single average grain of sand, calculate volume of a beach, and you will know average quantity of grains. The same is with atoms. Therefore we can convert mass to moles in chemistry.

How about temperature and luminosity? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atoms don't think or read indicators. They simply respond to their respective fields through attraction and repulsion interactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

How atoms knew that they were farther away from the center? Does atom have such indicator to indicate coordinates?  

Or, to put it according to GR ( if you don't like 'spooky' action at a distance ), they simply follow the local space-time curvature ( geodesic ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Atoms don't think or read indicators. They simply respond to their respective fields through attraction and repulsion interactions.

if we ask a person to sit in a box and tie the box with different length ropes . when we pull any of the ropes with equal strength and direction, does he know which one?

if atom is exerted with forces from various distances, that atom will interact according to directions and strengths of those forces only.  atom is not experiencing any distances.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The words 'equal strength' are not well defined physics terms.
If instead you use 'force', which is well defined, and gives rise to an acceleration, then, yes, you absolutely know which rope/direction.
Just as when you're in an elevator, even with your eyes closed so you don't see the floor number, you can tell if you're going up or down.

12 minutes ago, Lan Todak said:

atom is not experiencing any distances.

That is one of the problems with Newtonian gravity ( action at a distance ) that A Einstein set out to remedy with GR, which is simply mass following space-time curvature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lan Todak said:

if we ask a person to sit in a box and tie the box with different length ropes . when we pull any of the ropes with equal strength and direction, does he know which one?

What does this have to do with gravity, which does not have equal strength?

1 hour ago, Lan Todak said:

if atom is exerted with forces from various distances, that atom will interact according to directions and strengths of those forces only.  atom is not experiencing any distances.  

It experiences an interaction, whose strength is dependent on distance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lan Todak said:

if we ask a person to sit in a box and tie the box with different length ropes . when we pull any of the ropes with equal strength and direction, does he know which one?

if atom is exerted with forces from various distances, that atom will interact according to directions and strengths of those forces only.  atom is not experiencing any distances.  

!

Moderator Note

You have been told that it is the field which changes with distance so atoms do not need to "know" the distance. If you do not start engaging seriously, this thread will be closed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lan Todak said:

if we ask a person to sit in a box and tie the box with different length ropes . when we pull any of the ropes with equal strength and direction, does he know which one?

if atom is exerted with forces from various distances, that atom will interact according to directions and strengths of those forces only.  atom is not experiencing any distances.  

I'm curious as to why you keep trying to visualize an atom with some form of sentient life. ?

No particle thinks... it cannot know anything 

The mass term of every particle is due to its coupling strength to their respective fields that the particle interacts with. Mass is defined as resistance to inertia change.  

 There are no ropes involved so the above makes no sense. As others have already mentioned there are forces involved and each force has a ratio of change due to distance.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since i have been given warning so i will go straight to the point.

 

our solar system is well fine tuned so everything seems stable from going to disorder.

because of that, energy looks conserved in every confined body. but globally that's not the case. 

total mass should be calculated of certain area or volume rather than of body when involving chaotic systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem 

//I will go on vacation and will be back.. 😃

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lan Todak said:

Since i have been given warning so i will go straight to the point.

 

our solar system is well fine tuned so everything seems stable from going to disorder.

because of that, energy looks conserved in every confined body. but globally that's not the case. 

total mass should be calculated of certain area or volume rather than of body when involving chaotic systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem 

//I will go on vacation and will be back.. 😃

  

!

Moderator Note

When you come back, you can start a new thread in Speculations.

That thread must provide the mathematics behind this idea. And show how that matches what we observe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.