FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
_A_ mass is an unspecified quantity; _the_ mass is a specific quantity
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Don1
science forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1859

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:49 am    Post subject: _A_ mass is an unspecified quantity; _the_ mass is a specific quantity Reply with quote

Is this a subtle difference or what? When speaking of quantities
matter:

_A_ mass is an unspecified quantity; _the_ mass is a specific quantity;
called inertia.

Newton defined mass as the quantity of matter in a body; as the product
of its bulk and density conjointly. To find the specific quantity of
matter in a body requires both its bulk and density.

A specific quantity of matter is called inertia, and is the ratio of
the force exerted on and/or by a body, divided by the acceleration
caused. To find the specific quantity of matter in a body requires both
its weight and the acceleration at which it will free fall: or the
force and acceleration caused.

Don
Back to top
Clemens W
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:31 am    Post subject: Re: _A_ mass is an unspecified quantity; _the_ mass is a specific quantity Reply with quote

Don is still confused by his own non-sequiturs:
Quote:
[...snip..] To find the specific quantity of matter in a body requires both
its weight and the acceleration at which it will free fall: or the
force and acceleration caused.

But Force (and therefore, weight, too) is _per_definition_ derived from
the cahnge of momentum over time:

F=dp/dt

For small velocities (v<<c), mass can be considered to be a constant,
therefore:

F=m*dv/dt

For continuous acceleration, this can be reduced to:

F=m*a

This definition holds true for both SI and imperial system, so if you
insist on force/weight being a fundamental value, not a derived one,
you'd have to invent a new definition on force (which I already
proposed, but you choose to ignore).

This new definition would also make it possible to omit any artifacts,
that seem to incumber you.

So, it really is your turn!

A. Friend
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [2 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:58 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts troubles in determination of specific... eos Chem 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:05 am
No new posts troubles in determination of specific... eos Chem 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:02 am
No new posts Mass Henry Haapalainen Relativity 24 Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:28 am
No new posts Capacitance and mass DGoncz@aol.com Research 1 Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:32 am
No new posts Rest mass is the mass which increases... brian a m stuckless Relativity 0 Sun Jun 25, 2006 1:39 am

Credit Cards | Free Credit Report | Guitar Lessons | Prepaid Credit Cards | Web Advertising
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.2369s ][ Queries: 16 (0.1661s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]