Stuart Noble wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology, mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter
in a body'. 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.

Relating the mass simply to the number of atoms would seem to preclude
any gain is mass with velocity (something intrinsically linked with
time dilation), and time dilation is something that has been
observed. Mass it seems is not as "fixed" as classical physics would
have us believe.

If you're going to talk about mass, as you have, you have to know what
it means, not say in Humpty Dumpty fashion "it means just what I
choose it to mean - neither more nor less".

So, what is mass? What is your definition?


This thread interests me, not because I understand a bloody word of it,
but because people with degrees in the subject end up squabbling over
what appear to be fundamentals. Is that the nature of the beast maybe?
So far we seem to have graduates from Imperial College and York, but I
may have missed some. Any chance of the others combatants declaring
their credentials? Not as a dick waving exercise, but to give people
like me an insight into the extent to which experts can disagree.

Engineering, Cambridge.

Bambleweeny57 wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:58:51 +0000, Stuart Noble wrote:

This thread interests me, not because I understand a bloody word of it,
but because people with degrees in the subject end up squabbling over
what appear to be fundamentals. Is that the nature of the beast maybe?
So far we seem to have graduates from Imperial College and York, but I
may have missed some. Any chance of the others combatants declaring
their credentials? Not as a dick waving exercise, but to give people
like me an insight into the extent to which experts can disagree.

The politest description of much of this thread might be Newtonian v.
Einsteinian physics.

Newtonian physics is good for about 99.99% of what we observe & do as
humans.

Einsteinian physics starts to "kick in" at the extremes.

No, it kicks in everywhere. Its just the two worldviews converge at
small scale low energy events.

Newton is a good approximation to Einstein, for small energies.

Much of the
physics in this area is still theoretical & difficult to fully grasp with
a strong mathematical background and this is the reason for "discussions"
amongst scientists. Significant sums of money are going into test these
theories with things like the LIGO gravity wave detector and the Large
Hadron Collider.

This is where I duck


That's not really about relativity much though. That's about fine
structu Not how it behaves in a gravitational field.

BW

brightside S9 wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:56:58 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:


Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you
can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But
those calculations only have any significance or relevance if what
you're doing is actually converting mass into energy or vice versa.
And mass is not actually converted into energy on earth in any
processes except nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, whatever
you may think.

No you forgot chemical reactions. However because the change in mass
is so small and inperceptible, chemistry has aworkable law of
"Conservation of Mass", which is confusing *you*.

Common example given in physics text books is the explosion of 1kg of
dynamite. This results in a mass loss of about 0.6nkg and energy
release of 5.4MJ. So for chemistry the mass loss is *imperceptible*
but the energy release is obvious.

That's circular. The writers have assumed that e=mc^2 applies, calculated a
spurious result in a case where it clearly doesn't actually apply, and
concluded that chemical reactions therefore obey the formula.

Isn't it convenient that in all of these cases where e=mc^2 is erroneously
applied, the change of mass they say occurs can't actually be demonstrated
because it's always so 'imperciptibly small'?

If you consulted a _chemistry_ text book it would doubtless say that there
is no loss of mass at all, the energy coming not from destruction of matter,
which would be required for mass loss, but from the chemical reactions in
which compounds of high chemical energy combine to form compounds of lower
intrinsic energy.

Stuart Noble wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology, mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter
in a body'. 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.

Relating the mass simply to the number of atoms would seem to
preclude any gain is mass with velocity (something intrinsically
linked with time dilation), and time dilation is something that has
been observed. Mass it seems is not as "fixed" as classical physics
would have us believe.

If you're going to talk about mass, as you have, you have to know
what it means, not say in Humpty Dumpty fashion "it means just what
I choose it to mean - neither more nor less".

So, what is mass? What is your definition?


This thread interests me, not because I understand a bloody word of
it, but because people with degrees in the subject end up squabbling
over what appear to be fundamentals.

I agree. It should be so simple. But what can you do if people use words
to mean whatever they want them to, and fail to define their terms even when
pressed?

Is that the nature of the beast maybe?

No, just the standard of the participants. Some, like me, want to clarify
issues. Others want to obscure them.

dennis@home wrote:


"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
om...

This thread interests me, not because I understand a bloody word of
it, but because people with degrees in the subject end up squabbling
over what appear to be fundamentals. Is that the nature of the beast
maybe?
So far we seem to have graduates from Imperial College and York, but I
may have missed some. Any chance of the others combatants declaring
their credentials? Not as a dick waving exercise, but to give people
like me an insight into the extent to which experts can disagree.

There is no disagreement with the fundamental laws or the equations
governing them (well not in this thread).
There are a group who think the equations are universal and a group that
think they are not.
So far the group that don't think they are universal have posted stuff
that the "universal" group can't or won't explain. other than to state
they are universal so must apply.


Quite the reverse. We have posted plenty of material that asserts that
it is so if einsteins theory remains inviolate.

Its not a question of whether it is or isn't. Einstein's theory says it
HAS to be. It is not possible to take energy out of a system without
decreasing its mass. THATS WHAT THE ****ing theory is all about FER
CHRISSAKES. Its called the principle of energy mass equivalence. It is
absolutely universal, with no exceptions, or Einstein's theory is down
the toilet.


I didn't postulate the theory: It's not down to me to prove or refute
it. I am merely stating what the theory *says*.



There are a lot of scientists and mathematicians trying to produce a
universal model ATM, the latest attempt is called string theory. They
wouldn't be doing this if the others were universal would they?


Your inability to grasp the difference between universal applicability,
and ubiquity is astonishing.

Can you not grasp a statement like 'all water is wet' which has
universal applicability, does not cover the sexual orientation of Goldfish?




What the "universal" group are saying is that the people working on
string theory aren't as clever as they are as the existing maths is
universal.


That is a complete lie.


To see why some think they are not universal have a look at
http://www.superstringtheory.com/index.html and then decide for yourself
if you can apply E=mc2 everywhere and interchange mass for energy at a
whim.


where does that say anything about relativity? where does it refute
Einstein's theory?


You will notice that at least one problem they are working on is the
fact that relativity tends not to work unless you ignore the effect of
gravity (http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic3.html). Something
you can't do in the real world even if you are TNP.
The reality is that this is not an argument between experts at all.

Oh dear. You appear not to have understood even that rather dumb view.
The point is that string theory RECONCILES relativity with the subatomic
view. Not refutes it.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
I've already pointed out in another post complete with a link to K&L
that this definition of mass is WRONG! What you are using is a
scientifically loose description of it in common parlance, NOT a
definition.

That's strange. I thought dictionaries were there to provide
definitions.

Well there you thought wrong.

Yes, of course. Does Matron know you're out?


And besides, there seems to be a marked reluctance on the part of
some here, to give the definition on which they rely, even when
asked several times over. I think that's because they'll be found
out to be fiddling the facts to fit their conclusions.


F=ma.

Ah, Newton's second law, I believe.

I thought you'd moved on from classical Newtonian mechanics.

It's quite true of course, but how does it help?

It defines mass in terms of force and acceleration. It is the definition.

Java Jive wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:23:41 GMT, Bambleweeny57
wrote:

The politest description of much of this thread might be Newtonian v.
Einsteinian physics.

Newtonian physics is good for about 99.99% of what we observe & do as
humans.

Einsteinian physics starts to "kick in" at the extremes.[]

That's being very polite indeed!

It's also what I've been saying all along. Where I have a problem is with
those who say it's not just at the extremes but in everything we do,
including winding up the weight on a cuckoo clock.


FWIW, my suspicion is that Norman is in the wrong, because otherwise,
as I pointed out 4 days ago, a photon would not have mass and be bent
by the sun, whereas in a famous post WWI experiment, it was proved
that light *is* bent by the sun. In fact, astronomers now use the
phenomenon of gravitational lensing to magnify distant objects that
would otherwise be less observable.

And if that's not 'at the extremes', I don't know what is.

dennis@home wrote:

To see why some think they are not universal have a look at
http://www.superstringtheory.com/index.html and then decide for
yourself if you can apply E=mc2 everywhere and interchange mass for
energy at a whim.

If you can, I'd like to know how I can get up to London using the energy in
a 50g lump of lead please.

J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Tell me, what mass has been created, not its quantity but its nature.

No additional atoms or sub-atomic particles are created.

The mass of each and every sub-atomic particle that has mass is
increased however.

Define 'mass' then.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

How can you MEASURE the 'quantity of mater' in anything?

You count the atoms.

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
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 based on false premises is nit the truth.

They're the only premises we've got. You see, you haven't provided any
alternative viable definition, despite having been asked several times.


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 should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created,
and whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or
different (in which case what?).

The atoms are *not constant* in mass..

The number of atoms _is_ the mass, silly. It follows from the
definition of mass.


It follows from YOUR definition of mass, sure. But that is not the
definition that science in fact uses.

So you say, so you say. But since you've given no viable alternative
definition, so mine is the best.


I have givben youu at least one. You just persist in lying about it


Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass.
No nuclear transformations are necessary.

But there's a difference in fact between energy and mass

Not if you use the Einstein worldview, there isn't. Its merely how
they appear to you.

OK, here's a 50g lump of lead, and I want to go to London. Plenty of
energy there to do that, you say, so how do I do it? If it was
chemical energy, I could easily release that and convert it into
kinetic energy, like I do in a car. But how do I do it with a lump
of lead? Should be easy enough if it's energy already surely.

Dont be sillier than you have to be.

You said there was no difference between energy and mass. How do I get
to London using the energy of a 50g lump of lead? Serious question
based on _your_ propositions. Can you support them or not?


Its wholly beyond your capabilities. I am not here to solve your trivial
transport problems.

However given an appropriate nuclear reactor, it might be just enough to
blow your arse to kingdom come, which is probably where it belongs ;-)


OTOH if you attached to a string to it over a pulley and dropped it down
a hiole, it might get you to lodon.

Or best of all, get someone to smash your skull in with it, and call the
london ambulance service. ;-)



namely that
mass, ie matter, has a tangible physical form. If energy is
converted into mass, it must be converted into atoms or at least
sub-atomic particles. What atoms? What sub-atomic particles?

The confusion arises from your insistence that atoms and particles
have fixed masses. They don't.

But you can't even define mass. And without that, you can't possibly
say that they don't. The dictionary definition, however, leads
logically and inevitably to the fact that they do.

Sigh. Mass has been defined for you perfectly clearly and simply. It
is the 'm' term in the equation F=ma.

Er, sorry, but that isn't a definition. It's a formula in which it
appears. To know what a formula means, you must know first how all the
symbols in it are defined.


So applying that to your chambers 'definition' that's completely invalid
as well!

Norman Wells
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 14:34

dennis@home wrote:

To see why some think they are not universal have a look at
http://www.superstringtheory.com/index.html and then decide for
yourself if you can apply E=mc2 everywhere and interchange mass for
energy at a whim.

If you can, I'd like to know how I can get up to London using the energy
in a 50g lump of lead please.

Easy. *You* take 50g of antimatter-lead, shove both up your behind whilst
pointing your head towards London.


Two problems solved.

--
Tim Watts
The ****artist formerly known as Tim S

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:20:18 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading
about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear
to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.
Unfortunately that won't help at all with situations that don't
involve quantum mechanics in the slightest.

The physics of sub-atomic particles has no relevance unless you're
considering sub-atomic particles. Winding a cuckoo clock doesn't.
OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

Because it's springy, stupid.


And how does it get to be that way without reference to its molecular
constituents?

Intra-molecular conformation for one thing. If, for example, you have
two long molecules that are intertwined, it will take some force to
separate them. That's nothing to do with the molecules themselves but
their physical arrangement or conformation.

Ah, so its not about the lumps, its about the connections. And what,
pray, are the connections 'made of'?

What holds the atoms in this arrangement? why don't they wander off
independently?



Iron and steels vary in
their springiness because of their crystalline structures. What you're
observing are physical, macro effects.


And how come they take up crystalline forms?

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is fission,
the majority would take the view that fission is induced by the
interaction of free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff is
radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle or
photon, without the neucleus splitting.

Radon is a decay product of radium. Radon is the most common source of
radioactivity on the planet's surface.

Whereas of course just a few hours ago, you were claiming it as a
product of a nuclear reactor at the earth's core, saying:

"Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down there..where else
would all the radon come from?"

What do you know?

So what is a fission product except part of a nuclear reaction?

J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:46:00 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the
body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms.

That is not the quantity mass, but the quantity amount of substance
(SI unit mole).

The mole is defined as the amount of substance of a system that
contains as many "elemental entities" (e.g. atoms, molecules, ions,
electrons) as there are atoms in 12 g of carbon-12 (12C).

Mass is a measure of the inertia of a body, and it not a measure of
the number of elementary particles.

So you say, but don't support.

According to my Dictionary of Science and Technology, which is the only
_definition_ that's been provided in this thread, it's 'the quantity of
matter in a body'. As such, it _is_ a measure of the number of elementary
particles. It cannot be otherwise.

Java Jive wrote:

That's not the way scientific measurement works. The best that even a
scientific dictionary can give is a description.

Don't be absurd. Dictionaries exist to provide definitions. A Dictionary
of Science and Technology exists to provide definitions of scientific and
technological terms

Perhaps you're not familiar with their purpose.


And actually, though I'm definitely not interested in arguing the
matter, I'd also dispute that normal dictionaries actually supply
definitions.

sigh education today.

John Rumm wrote:

however the relativistic difference in mass (approx 1x10^-16 kg), is
dwarfed by the effects of the variation in gravitational field caused
by the 1m height differential, so the experiment is fatally flawed
before you begin.

How convenient.

Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Tell me, what mass has been created, not its quantity but its nature.

No additional atoms or sub-atomic particles are created.

The mass of each and every sub-atomic particle that has mass is
increased however.

Define 'mass' then.

Define reality Norman.

Is what you think it is?

Is it what I think it is?

Looks like we have moved from Poper to Godel.

And beyond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma

Reality is ultimately what we agree it is. If we don't agree, then
nothing more can be said.

Einstein produced an internally consistent theorem, one of whose
predictions was that mass and energy as classically defined, were
aspects of one thing.

You cant prove its correct, and so far you haven't proved its incorrect.


So in your case, lacking the ability to even understand it, it becomes a
matter of Faith I suppose.

Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:46:00 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the
body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms.

That is not the quantity mass, but the quantity amount of substance
(SI unit mole).

The mole is defined as the amount of substance of a system that
contains as many "elemental entities" (e.g. atoms, molecules, ions,
electrons) as there are atoms in 12 g of carbon-12 (12C).

Mass is a measure of the inertia of a body, and it not a measure of
the number of elementary particles.

So you say, but don't support.

According to my Dictionary of Science and Technology, which is the only
_definition_ that's been provided in this thread, it's 'the quantity of
matter in a body'. As such, it _is_ a measure of the number of
elementary particles. It cannot be otherwise.


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

If you can understand beyond the first word.

John Rumm wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology,

Which is simply wrong.

Well, that's nice of you just to diss a reputable and reliable source
like that. Patronising even. Especially since I've asked you
numerous

Hardly. The dictionary is giving you a very simplistic definition of
mass. Adequate for some purposes, but not if you wish to discuss
matters of quantum physics or (special) relativity.

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?

Try again.

dismiss an established definition and replace it with, well, what
exactly? Something woolly and undefined with no scientific
foundation which you just state supports your case when there is no
justification for that at all.

Erm, see above.

You've confirmed that you have no understanding of what a definition is, let
alone provided one that is precise.



mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter in a body'.

It isn't. Its defined precisely by Newtonian mechanics as the value
of the inertia of the object.

Is that the definition you use? Where does that come from? Anyway,
I though you were dissing Newtonian mechanics as well.

Newtonian mechanics is as far as it goes. However it is an
approximation, that omits detail.

How can you MEASURE the 'quantity of mater' in anything?

You count the atoms.

Which only tell you the mass if you know other things.

The number of atoms _is_ the quantity of matter in a body. It is composed
of nothing else.


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.


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?


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.


you should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created,
and whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or
different (in which case what?).

The atoms are *not constant* in mass..

The number of atoms _is_ the mass, silly. It follows from the
definition of mass.

Only from Chambers, and it should hopefully be clear that this is an
over simplistic definition.

Which we should replace by what exactly?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology, mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter
in a body'. 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.

Relating the mass simply to the number of atoms would seem to
preclude any gain is mass with velocity (something intrinsically
linked with time dilation), and time dilation is something that has
been observed. Mass it seems is not as "fixed" as classical physics
would have us believe.

If you're going to talk about mass, as you have, you have to know
what it means, not say in Humpty Dumpty fashion "it means just what
I choose it to mean - neither more nor less".

The very point I made to you.

I am using 'mass' to mean exactly what it says in the dictionary definition,
no more and no less, and utterly consistently.


So, what is mass? What is your definition?


The property of an object that leads to its inertia.

We know everything has it. What we want to know is what it is. _Define_
the term, and give your source.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And besides, there seems to be a marked reluctance on the part of
some here, to give the definition on which they rely, even when
asked several times over. I think that's because they'll be found
out to be fiddling the facts to fit their conclusions.


F=ma.

Ah, Newton's second law, I believe.

I thought you'd moved on from classical Newtonian mechanics.

It's quite true of course, but how does it help?

It defines mass in terms of force and acceleration. It is the
definition.

All it is is a formula, so perhaps you don't understand the concept of
'definitions'?

To understand a formula, you have to know exactly what all the little
letters in it mean and how they are defined. It's totally illogical to
point to a formula and say that it 'defines' anything. It doesn't. It
merely shows the relationship of things that are already defined.

If you know two of the variables in the equation, you can _calculate_ a
value for the third, but it doesn't _define_ what it is.

So, yet again, we're no further forward, are we?

On 2009-09-21, Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:46:00 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the
body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms.
That is not the quantity mass, but the quantity amount of substance
(SI unit mole).
The mole is defined as the amount of substance of a system that
contains as many "elemental entities" (e.g. atoms, molecules, ions,
electrons) as there are atoms in 12 g of carbon-12 (12C).
Mass is a measure of the inertia of a body, and it not a measure of
the number of elementary particles.
So you say, but don't support.

According to my Dictionary of Science and Technology, which is the only
_definition_ that's been provided in this thread, it's 'the quantity of
matter in a body'. As such, it _is_ a measure of the number of elementary
particles. It cannot be otherwise.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/relativity2.htm

"Mass and Energy
Mass has two definitions that are equally important. One is a general
definition that most high school students are taught and the other is
a more technical definition that is used in physics.

Generally, mass is defined as the measure of how much matter an object
or body contains - the total number of sub-atomic particles (electrons,
protons and neutrons) in the object. If you multiply your mass by the
pull of earth's gravity, you get your weight. So if your body weight is
fluctuating, by eating or exercising, it is actually your mass that is
changing. It is important to understand that mass is independent of your
position in space. Your body's mass on the moon is the same as its mass
on the earth. The earth's gravitational pull, on the other hand, decreases
as you move farther away from the earth. Therefore, you can lose weight
by changing your elevation, but your mass remains the same. You can also
lose weight by living on the moon, but again your mass is the same.

In physics, mass is defined as the amount of force required to cause a
body to accelerate. Mass is very closely related to energy in physics.
Mass is dependent on the body's motion relative to the motion of an
observer. If the body in motion measured its mass, it is always the same.
However, if an observer that is not in motion with the body measures the
body's mass, the observer would see an increase in mass when the object
speeds up. This is called relativistic mass. It should be noted that
physics has actually stopped using this concept of mass and now deals
mostly in terms of energy (see the section on the unification of mass and
energy) . At this stage, this definition of mass may be a little cloudy,
but it is important to know the concept. It should become clearer in the
special relativity discussion. The important thing to understand here is
that there is a relationship between mass and energy.

Energy
Energy is the measure of a system's ability to perform "work". It exists
in many formsàpotential, kinetic, etc. The law of conservation of energy
tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be
converted from one form to another. These separate forms of energy are not
conserved, but the total amount of energy is conserved. If you drop a
baseball from your roof, the ball has kinetic energy the moment it starts
to move. Just before you dropped the ball, it had only potential energy.
As the ball moves, the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy.
Likewise, when the ball hits the ground, some of its energy is converted
to heat (sometimes called heat energy or heat kinetic energy). If you go
through each phase of this scenario and totaled up the energy for the
system, you will find that the amount of energy for the system is the same
at all times.

[...]

Energy-Mass Unification
You should readily understand how a system with very little mass has the
potential to release a phenomenal amount of energy (in E=mc^2, c^2 is an
enormous number). In nuclear fission, an atom splits to form two more atoms.
At the same time, a neutron is released. The sum of the new atoms' masses
and the neutron's mass are less than the mass of the initial atom. Where
did the missing mass go? It was released in the form of heat - kinetic
energy. This energy is exactly what Einstein's E=mc^2 predicts. Another
nuclear event that corresponds with Einstein's equation is fusion. Fusion
occurs when lightweight atoms are subjected to extremely high temperatures.
The temperatures allow the atoms to fuse together to form a heavier atom.
Hydrogen fusing into helium is a typical example. What is critical is the
fact that the mass of the new atom is less than the sum of the lighter atoms'
masses. As with fission, the "missing" mass is released in the form of heat
- kinetic energy.

One often-misinterpreted aspect of the energy-mass unification is that a
system's mass increases as the system approaches the speed of light. This
is not correct. Let's assume that a rocket ship is streaking through space.
The following occurs:

1 Energy must be added to the system to increase the ship's speed.
2 More of the added energy goes towards increasing the system's resistance to
acceleration.
3 Less of the added energy goes into increasing the system's speed.
4 Eventually, the amount of added energy required to reach the speed of light
would become infinite.

In step 2, the system's resistance to acceleration is a measurement of the
system's energy and momentum. Take notice that in the above 4 steps, there
is no reference to mass. Nor does there need to be."

Tim W wrote:
Norman Wells
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 14:34

dennis@home wrote:

To see why some think they are not universal have a look at
http://www.superstringtheory.com/index.html and then decide for
yourself if you can apply E=mc2 everywhere and interchange mass for
energy at a whim.

If you can, I'd like to know how I can get up to London using the
energy in a 50g lump of lead please.

Easy. *You* take 50g of antimatter-lead, shove both up your behind
whilst pointing your head towards London.


Two problems solved.

Sadly, I don't have any anti-matter lead, so I can't escape this asylum that
easily.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I didn't postulate the theory: It's not down to me to prove or refute it.
I am merely stating what the theory *says*.

Go on then show me how it works with the hydro electric problem I set
earlier.
You should find it easy.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

While you may take the view that any splitting of atoms is
fission, the majority would take the view that fission is induced
by the interaction of free neutrons with nuclei. The other stuff
is radioactive decay.

With fission, an nucleus splits into two nuclei of smaller atomic
number, with the emission of gamma rays and some particles (usually
neutrons).

Radioactive decay *usually* results in the emission of a particle
or photon, without the neucleus splitting.

Radon is a decay product of radium. Radon is the most common source
of radioactivity on the planet's surface.

Whereas of course just a few hours ago, you were claiming it as a
product of a nuclear reactor at the earth's core, saying:

"Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down there..where else
would all the radon come from?"

What do you know?

So what is a fission product except part of a nuclear reaction?

It can be the product of natural radio-active decay. A nuclear reaction is
usually taken as necessitating bombardment with neutrons.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

You said there was no difference between energy and mass. How do I
get to London using the energy of a 50g lump of lead? Serious
question based on _your_ propositions. Can you support them or not?

Its wholly beyond your capabilities. I am not here to solve your
trivial transport problems.

However given an appropriate nuclear reactor, it might be just enough
to blow your arse to kingdom come, which is probably where it belongs

OTOH if you attached to a string to it over a pulley and dropped it
down a hiole, it might get you to lodon.

Or best of all, get someone to smash your skull in with it, and call
the london ambulance service. ;-)

I'll take that as a 'no' then.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

Because it's springy, stupid.

And how does it get to be that way without reference to its
molecular constituents?

Intra-molecular conformation for one thing. If, for example, you
have two long molecules that are intertwined, it will take some
force to separate them. That's nothing to do with the molecules
themselves but their physical arrangement or conformation.

Ah, so its not about the lumps, its about the connections. And what,
pray, are the connections 'made of'?

What holds the atoms in this arrangement? why don't they wander off
independently?

Friction, shape, conformation, and lack of desire to be adventurous.

Iron and steels vary in
their springiness because of their crystalline structures. What
you're observing are physical, macro effects.


And how come they take up crystalline forms?

Everyone should have a hobby.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Tell me, what mass has been created, not its quantity but its
nature.

No additional atoms or sub-atomic particles are created.

The mass of each and every sub-atomic particle that has mass is
increased however.

Define 'mass' then.

Einstein produced an internally consistent theorem, one of whose
predictions was that mass and energy as classically defined, were
aspects of one thing.

You cant prove its correct, and so far you haven't proved its
incorrect.

I wouldn't dream of proving it incorrect. Of course mass and energy are
aspects of one thing, just as pounds and dollars are aspects of money.
Dollars can be changed into pounds and vice versa, but only if you follow
defined steps. They don't do it magically all by themselves. And that's
what we're arguing about here. Mass and energy _can_ be interchanged, as
has been demonstrated conclusively in nuclear reactions. But my point is
that they don't do it magically all by themselves either, and they don't do
it at all unless you follow particular procedures to make it happen.
Otherwise, you'd be able to tell me how to get to London on the energy in a
50g lump of lead, wouldn't you?

So in your case, lacking the ability to even understand it, it
becomes a matter of Faith I suppose.

No. What I understand is based on scientific evidence and observation.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:46:00 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms
the body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms.

That is not the quantity mass, but the quantity amount of substance
(SI unit mole).

The mole is defined as the amount of substance of a system that
contains as many "elemental entities" (e.g. atoms, molecules, ions,
electrons) as there are atoms in 12 g of carbon-12 (12C).

Mass is a measure of the inertia of a body, and it not a measure of
the number of elementary particles.

So you say, but don't support.

According to my Dictionary of Science and Technology, which is the
only _definition_ that's been provided in this thread, it's 'the
quantity of matter in a body'. As such, it _is_ a measure of the
number of elementary particles. It cannot be otherwise.


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

If you can understand beyond the first word.

Oh yes. So, what definition are you using then?

Java Jive wrote:
Well, I've proved one thing today to my satisfaction at least: Norman
just doesn't know when he's just been disproved. It's like arguing
against a devout religious belief - a complete waste of time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictionary

dictionary

No mention anywhere of 'define', 'definition', or any variant of the
word.


You've never heard of the expression 'dictionary definition' then?

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

However most scientists even today working outside the field of
physics don't have more than a hazy understanding of relativity, so
you find plenty of folks who think like Norman, that relativity
doesn't apply outside of nuclear situations. Not that he is in any
sense a scientist, or scientifically trained.

Nevertheless, it does.

No it doesn't except where mass and energy are actually
interconverted, which does not happen as a matter of normal physical
operations which just effect energy-energy conversions.

As 'Natural Philosopher' has been trying to explain to you

I know. He's been _so_ kind.

According
to general relativity mass and energy are simply two ways to observe
the same fundamental property.

That's where we differ. I say that they are related and can be
interconverted under some conditions, a bit like dollars and pounds. They
are not the same, however, otherwise someone would be able to tell me how I
can travel to London using the energy in a 50g lump of lead .

So if any system gains energy it also
gains mass. if you disagree with that you are rejecting one of the
axioms of general relativity.

It's a bit dodgy, though, if you have to revise your definition of such a
fundamental concept as 'mass' in order for it to fit your theory. Usually,
when that happens, most people do the sensible thing and reject the theory
instead.


Been some years since I read it, but if you doubt this, go and read
'Gravitation' by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. If you can cope with the
maths it should explain it to you. IIRC The smaller book by Berry
also dealt with this, but I can't recall as it was ages ago I read
that as well.

You say that if I raise a lump of lead against the force of gravity,
it gains potential energy and therefore mass. Tell me, what mass
has been created, not its quantity but its nature. Is it electrons,
neutrons, protons, complete atoms or what? If it's complete atoms
of lead, please tell me how the energy knows to create atoms of
lead, ie each with 82 protons, 122 neutrons and 82 electrons, rather
than any other atoms. If it's other atoms, is it not the case that
sufficient raises and lowerings of the block will eventually change
its chemical composition?

Actually it is that every atom, electron, or other 'particle' in the
system tends to gain intertial mass by an amount that sums to the
total increase in energy of the system when you take the c-squared
factor into account.

You see, here we go, 'inertial mass' now. Is that the same as 'mass'. Is
it the same as 'relativistic mass'. Why do all the proponents of this
theory have to keep revising what they mean by 'mass' in order to make their
points? It smacks of smoke and mirrors to me and in that sense is just like
religion.


This is linked to effects like atomic clocks based on level
transitions altering their output. which are easily measured these
days if you have the kit and have a clue. So yes, people have
measured this via application of general relativity, and measured the
effect on the atoms and molecules. Look up the papers in the journals
if you want to know, rather than refuse to accept ot.

I can't help it if you don't understand all this or refuse to accept
it, though. Afraid that's your problem, not one for physics. So far
as I know, you aren't a university academic mis-teaching poor
students and confusing them about this. So it is none of my concern
if you refuse to accept what 'Natural Philosopher' keeps trying -
remarkably patiently - to tell you.

I've said I'm grateful, haven't I? What more do you want?

Norman Wells
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 15:21

Tim W wrote:
Norman Wells
wibbled on Monday 21 September 2009 14:34

dennis@home wrote:

To see why some think they are not universal have a look at
http://www.superstringtheory.com/index.html and then decide for
yourself if you can apply E=mc2 everywhere and interchange mass for
energy at a whim.

If you can, I'd like to know how I can get up to London using the
energy in a 50g lump of lead please.

Easy. *You* take 50g of antimatter-lead, shove both up your behind
whilst pointing your head towards London.


Two problems solved.

Sadly, I don't have any anti-matter lead,

Your personal inadequacies don't make it not possible.

so I can't escape this asylum
that easily.

Nicely summed up...

--
Tim Watts
The ****artist formerly known as Tim S

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:29:10 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Tell me, what mass has been created, not its quantity but its
nature.

No additional atoms or sub-atomic particles are created.

The mass of each and every sub-atomic particle that has mass is
increased however.

Define 'mass' then.

Einstein produced an internally consistent theorem, one of whose
predictions was that mass and energy as classically defined, were
aspects of one thing.

You cant prove its correct, and so far you haven't proved its
incorrect.

I wouldn't dream of proving it incorrect. Of course mass and energy are
aspects of one thing, just as pounds and dollars are aspects of money.
Dollars can be changed into pounds and vice versa, but only if you
follow defined steps. They don't do it magically all by themselves.
And that's what we're arguing about here. Mass and energy _can_ be
interchanged, as has been demonstrated conclusively in nuclear
reactions. But my point is that they don't do it magically all by
themselves either, and they don't do it at all unless you follow
particular procedures to make it happen. Otherwise, you'd be able to
tell me how to get to London on the energy in a 50g lump of lead,
wouldn't you?

So in your case, lacking the ability to even understand it, it
becomes a matter of Faith I suppose.

No. What I understand is based on scientific evidence and observation.

Norman. Think of it this way. Energy has weight. ANY energy has weight.

That's all it means

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:46:00 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:
That must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms
the body contains, since all matter is composed of atoms.

That is not the quantity mass, but the quantity amount of substance
(SI unit mole).

The mole is defined as the amount of substance of a system that
contains as many "elemental entities" (e.g. atoms, molecules, ions,
electrons) as there are atoms in 12 g of carbon-12 (12C).

Mass is a measure of the inertia of a body, and it not a measure of
the number of elementary particles.

So you say, but don't support.

According to my Dictionary of Science and Technology, which is the
only _definition_ that's been provided in this thread, it's 'the
quantity of matter in a body'. As such, it _is_ a measure of the
number of elementary particles. It cannot be otherwise.


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

If you can understand beyond the first word.

Oh yes. So, what definition are you using then?

I am not. I am merely telling you what the current definition is. See
that paper.

Norman Wells wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

However most scientists even today working outside the field of
physics don't have more than a hazy understanding of relativity, so
you find plenty of folks who think like Norman, that relativity
doesn't apply outside of nuclear situations. Not that he is in any
sense a scientist, or scientifically trained.

Nevertheless, it does.

No it doesn't except where mass and energy are actually
interconverted, which does not happen as a matter of normal physical
operations which just effect energy-energy conversions.

As 'Natural Philosopher' has been trying to explain to you

I know. He's been _so_ kind.

According
to general relativity mass and energy are simply two ways to observe
the same fundamental property.

That's where we differ. I say that they are related and can be
interconverted under some conditions, a bit like dollars and pounds.
They are not the same, however, otherwise someone would be able to tell
me how I can travel to London using the energy in a 50g lump of lead .

So if any system gains energy it also
gains mass. if you disagree with that you are rejecting one of the
axioms of general relativity.

It's a bit dodgy, though, if you have to revise your definition of such
a fundamental concept as 'mass' in order for it to fit your theory.
Usually, when that happens, most people do the sensible thing and reject
the theory instead.


Been some years since I read it, but if you doubt this, go and read
'Gravitation' by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. If you can cope with the
maths it should explain it to you. IIRC The smaller book by Berry
also dealt with this, but I can't recall as it was ages ago I read
that as well.

You say that if I raise a lump of lead against the force of gravity,
it gains potential energy and therefore mass. Tell me, what mass
has been created, not its quantity but its nature. Is it electrons,
neutrons, protons, complete atoms or what? If it's complete atoms
of lead, please tell me how the energy knows to create atoms of
lead, ie each with 82 protons, 122 neutrons and 82 electrons, rather
than any other atoms. If it's other atoms, is it not the case that
sufficient raises and lowerings of the block will eventually change
its chemical composition?

Actually it is that every atom, electron, or other 'particle' in the
system tends to gain intertial mass by an amount that sums to the
total increase in energy of the system when you take the c-squared
factor into account.

You see, here we go, 'inertial mass' now. Is that the same as 'mass'.
Is it the same as 'relativistic mass'. Why do all the proponents of
this theory have to keep revising what they mean by 'mass' in order to
make their points? It smacks of smoke and mirrors to me and in that
sense is just like religion.



Because you are a thick ****, basically. We are trying to paint pictures
that you can grasp.

BUT you dont want to grasp them.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:03:10 +0100, Mark
wrote:


Yes. And still are.


Ahh, they're pulllin' your leg.

IIRC most of the banks are still making a profit, albeit less than
before the bubble burst.


This is normal.

Most businesses can relate to a heyday they once had when salaries
grew freely and when Empires were built. Every few years there has to
be a correction.

The trouble is in the public service under the Jack - Boot of the
unions there can be no such correction so it goes on and on until such
time as the dire state of public services brings the government down.

We had Balls on the television over the weekend saying how he could
reduce educational costs at a stroke by dispensing with or merging
together high up managerial jobs in schools.

I can remember when my daughter went to a smallish primary school they
had *More than one* Deputy Headmistress (Plus the head). When she
moved on to middle / senior school / sixth form these so - called
"schools" all had their own "Head of" and a deputy "Head of", and
within each year in such a "school" every year had a * year leader*,
each major subject also had a "Head of" and they closed the school
about 3 days per year so they could all have "meetings".

For all their fancy job titles and nested levels of responsibility,
none of them had any authority to actually action any change at all,
and a fair proportion of the kids never got to read and write.

So "Old Balls" is probably right.

Nowadays they're charging high interest rates on loans and giving low
interest rates on investments so that they can recapitalise. Taxpayers
will also be paying through the nose for the foreseeable future to cut
government borrowing. Seems like we're going to be paying for this
fiasco twice over.

That's par for the course. We pay our NI contributions to cover the
cost of medical and dental care but in extremis with toothache you
have to pay again (a second time) to go private, ditto elective
surgery such as arthritic joint replacement, otherwise you can wait up
to 18 weeks for treatment unable to go to work or even walk at all for
that matter.

Norman Wells wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of
Science and Technology,

Which is simply wrong.

Well, that's nice of you just to diss a reputable and reliable source
like that. Patronising even. Especially since I've asked you
numerous

Hardly. The dictionary is giving you a very simplistic definition of
mass. Adequate for some purposes, but not if you wish to discuss
matters of quantum physics or (special) relativity.

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.

Try again.

dismiss an established definition and replace it with, well, what
exactly? Something woolly and undefined with no scientific
foundation which you just state supports your case when there is no
justification for that at all.

Erm, see above.

You've confirmed that you have no understanding of what a definition is,
let alone provided one that is precise.



mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter in a body'.

It isn't. Its defined precisely by Newtonian mechanics as the value
of the inertia of the object.

Is that the definition you use? Where does that come from? Anyway,
I though you were dissing Newtonian mechanics as well.

Newtonian mechanics is as far as it goes. However it is an
approximation, that omits detail.

How can you MEASURE the 'quantity of mater' in anything?

You count the atoms.

Which only tell you the mass if you know other things.

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'


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.


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.


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 should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created,
and whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or
different (in which case what?).

The atoms are *not constant* in mass..

The number of atoms _is_ the mass, silly. It follows from the
definition of mass.

Only from Chambers, and it should hopefully be clear that this is an
over simplistic definition.

Which we should replace by what exactly?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

According to my Dictionary of Science and Technology, which is the
only _definition_ that's been provided in this thread, it's 'the
quantity of matter in a body'. As such, it _is_ a measure of the
number of elementary particles. It cannot be otherwise.


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

If you can understand beyond the first word.

Oh yes. So, what definition are you using then?

I am not.

In that case, you fall at the first hurdle. You cannot base any argument on
'mass' if you don't know what it means.

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?

Norman Wells wrote:

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?

A bit of a cheek, but what are your academic credentials, Norman? Just
out of interest, not being sarcastic here.