The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
times to provide the definition of mass that you use and give its
source and, every time, you have been unable to do so. Now you're
asking us to
How about:
"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the
energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/
9x10^2^0, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in
grammes". [A. Einstein, 27/09/1905,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ ]
That's not a definition at all. If I say "A pound is a measure of
the weight of a body" does that define what a pound is?
can be, if you define body and weight.
However it would be a wrong definition: A definition though.
Maybe English isn't your first language then?
The number of atoms _is_ the quantity of matter in a body. It is
composed of nothing else.
Well that is a very very thin-ice statement.
Many models would say that it was a lot more than that.
It certainly isn't enough to shake a random bunch of atoms in a bag
and say 'look, garlic sausage'
It is, however, what they consist of. Entirely. The fact that a bag of
atoms does not spontaneously form a garlic sausage in fact supports my
argument, not yours.
That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms
the body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms. From
that it follows that, however hot any amount of something is, it
has exactly the same mass as it always had, because it always
contains the same number of atoms.
Whose mass varies slightly with temperature.
No it doesn't. According to the only supported definition of mass
that we have here, ie the one from Chambers Dictionary of Science
and
Where does this assertion that Chambers Dictionary of Science and
Technology is the only supported definition come from?
Find me another.
WE have. Half a dozen now. But it seems that because you are a thick
****, the only one you can understand, is the Chambers. Presumably
written by thick ****s for thick ****s.
You don't understand what a definition is, so you wouldn't recognise one if
it bit you on the bum.
I've been referred to book after book, article after article, but still
no-one will state the definition _they_ use of something so basic and
fundamental as 'mass'. And without that, they cannot sustain any valid
argument. It's all waffle, shifting sand, smoke and mirrors.
Technology, mass is 'the quantity of matter in a body'. Unless you
increase the quantity of atoms in a body you cannot increase its
mass. That's logic, see?
Logic indeed. However if you start from a flawed baseline, any
logical derivation from it can't hope to be right can it?
For any typical human interaction with the world around us, the
notion that mass is "the quantity of matter in a body" is adequate.
However you need to also accept its only an approximation to the
reality.
So, what is mass, according to you?
Energy. Bound energy.
Is 'bound energy' a subset of energy? How is it related to 'energy'? What
are the differences that differentiate it from other forms of energy?
If you maintain, contrarily, that the number of atoms increases
with heating,
I never said that.
You can't be saying anything else if you say that mass increases
with heating.
You can, if you accept that the mass of atoms changes and that you
reject the concept that mass is defined purely as the number of
atoms you have.
If you start from the baseline that mass is defined by the combined
effect of both their number, and their embodied energy, then it is
quite easy.
But you haven't started from anywhere. You haven't defined mass.
See Godel. you can split the world into related bits, and design a
system, that is self consistent, but as to whether the initial
splitting is meaningful..no one can say.
You're not a Jehovah's Witness are you?