> Georges old: > Mass is a purely abstract coefficient helping to express > observables > such as force and acceleration in simple structures - > expressions. > It is void of any physical, phenomenal sens. ============= G: And so it is. Physics does not talk about resistance. When I try to lift myself up by pulling on my shoe laces I experience infinite resistance having nothing to do with any mass.
Physics postulates proportionality of force F and acceleration a and expresses it with the coefficient m, called "inertial mass": F = ma. Newtons second law postulated the gravity force or weight W as proportional to gravity acceleration G with coefficient M which he called "gravitational mass": W = MG We measure the force W and not any "resistance" with a balance scale. Einstein completed General Relativity by postulating the equivalence of m and M, a shortcut meaning that inertial and gravitational fields cannot be distinguished within an experiment. Cheers Georges ================= > > jr writes> > Hello Georges> > It is good to hear from you again. If you wish to describe > wind > direction by licking your thumb and extending it into the > wind, you > will have a working idea of both the direction and > intensity of the > wind. For that you require nothing more. However, if > you wish to > describe what you feel with your thumb as force and wind > acceleration, > the subjective aspect of your senses must be addressed. > > Let's take mass out of the incomplete, and limited precise > description > provided by the least action consistent mathematics. Mass > is a word > and is subject to the cross hair precision of the English > language. If > we don't get this precisely defined we wind up in the wash > of > mathematically endorsed ignorance. It is true that the > notion of mass > as the amount of matter deludes us. However, I say that > mass > quantitatively defines a conserved resistance that we feel, > as planet > surface objects. We measure this resistance with a balance > scale and > with impact experiments and learn that it is conserved on > planet and > moon surfaces and is proportional with respect to distance > and time in > all planet and moon surface physical inetractions between > planet and > moon surface objects, which again, we qualify as. > > Therefore it describes a physical quantity (resistance) as > that > quantity is measured and experienced by our senses. Mass > describes > resistance. That resistance is relative to our > concept and measure of > effort. Effort is not objectively defined in terms outside > our direct > action. When we exert effort we initiate and feel force. We > do not > respond to effort exerted by physical objects. A ball > rolling down an > incline exerts no effort. It responds to an attraction, not > a force > that we exert. We feel force if it collides with us. And > so, we assign > what we feel (resistance) to the physical universe and > attribute the > rolling ball's action to a force of gravity which just > happens to be > equal and opposite to the force we apply and therefore > feel, (in part > because we attribute the balance scale functionality to > that universal > but nonetheless subjective force we have assigned it, as > gravity) > > We respond to physical events. Inanimate objects do not > exert force. A > moving object requires that we exert an effort to change > its motion. > The force we apply is equal and opposite to the conserved > resistance > of the object's atoms we act on, or that acts on us. We can > describe > the interactions between planet and moon surface objects in > terms of > what we feel as a planet or moon surface object. And that > is what we > have done with the quantity mass. In this subjective > original sense it > represents resistance which is a physical phenomenon to > us. > > Mass is a unti of measure. A meter is a unti of measure. A > second is a > unit of measure. > Seconds measure duration. > Meters measure distance or length. > Mass measures resistance. > > There is nothing left but the precise defining of the > theaters of > operation. Which in all cases are originally sensory > dependent. The > question occurs: How far can we go with our generalizations > using > these quantities, in a least action consistent universe?. > > We feel force. We measure force in mass units. Therefore we > measure > what we feel in units of mass. What we feel is > physical. Now if you > are saying that what we feel is not fundamental, then we > are in > agreement on that. Mass is the subjective unit of > measure that > directly relates to the effort we exert to lift an object. > This effort > can be quantized on the balance scale. The balance scale > measures > amounts of matter in terms of their comparative > resistance. The > balance scale does not show that mass is being acted upon > by the Earth > attractor. Again, if this is where you are going, I agree. > > o0o > Georges wrote> > Mass is a purely abstract coefficient helping to express > observables > such as force and acceleration in simple structures - > expressions. > It is void of any physical, phenomenal sens. > > jr writes> What does "purely abstract" mean? Is the > "coefficient" the > amount of something, or the number of things? And what in > the world do > we make of "helping to express observables". "such as force > and > acceleration" and "in simple structures". and finally, "It > is void of > any physical phenomenal sense" where that's all mass is, a > physical > phenomenal sense. Resistance to our effort. > > Have a good time, > johnreed > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
