Physically Speaking

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Physically Speaking

Physically Speaking13-01-2021 21:08
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Since glaciers have mass, what specifically is mass? Can we define it . We can define mass. On Earth, a 1 kilogram weight has 9.81 newtons of force. This is not mass. Also, something weighing 1 kilogram on Earth is not mass. Mass is what a 1 kilogram weight weighs at sea level in the Earth's gravitational field. If it were at an elevation of 1,000 feet or 300 meters (2 different things), it's weight would be less. Away from the Earth's gravitational field, a 1 kilogram weight would have mass but no weight. This makes it's mass and weight relative to the Earth. Why does this matter? f = ma and ma = m(d/t). Force is mass times acceleration. And acceleration is distance divided by time. Just some basic stuff here. And with glaciers, they have mass but no acceleration or velocity. This means they have no force or momentum. This is where with plate tectonics we need to consider weight (not mass, a mass occupies space or a given volume considered as space) and leverage. This gets into other things as well if we stay on topic. And for now, this debate is about the difference between, weight, mass and force. This in my opinion will help people to understand the difference between tectonic plate depression and tectonic plate rebound. p.s., am sorry guys, am just bored silly off of my a$$. Then again, we might live on a planet that's actually "pretty cool". Edited on 13-01-2021 21:09
14-01-2021 03:43
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Guys, this is an easy one. You can understand the difference between weight and mass. Mass has no weight.
14-01-2021 06:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: ... what specifically is mass? Can we define it . We can define mass. There was this guy name Albert who defined mass several decades ago. He defined it as energy divided by the speed of light squared ... and that causes curvature in space-time. I don't see any problem with his definition. It seems to be externally consistent and has fared pretty well in standing up to the scientific method. What do you think? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-01-2021 16:04
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: ... what specifically is mass? Can we define it . We can define mass. There was this guy name Albert who defined mass several decades ago. He defined it as energy divided by the speed of light squared ... and that causes curvature in space-time. I don't see any problem with his definition. It seems to be externally consistent and has fared pretty well in standing up to the scientific method. What do you think? . You got it wrong. He defined energy as mass divided by the speed of light squared. He was referencing light while I was discussing matter. 2 different things.
14-01-2021 16:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: You got it wrong. He defined energy as mass divided by the speed of light squared. He was referencing light while I was discussing matter. 2 different things. Au contraire mon frere, in defining the Energy-Mass relationship, he was defining mass as a form of energy ... and specifying exactly how much. This is why you can enter your mass value as an independent variable and calculate the amount of energy it represents as a dependent variable. Try it, it works. Yes, the reverse works as well. Photons have mass although they are not matter. PlanckLightSpeed/Wavelength = Energy = massLightSpeed^2 Ergo PlanckLightSpeed/Wavelength = massLightSpeed^2 Planck/Wavelength = massLightSpeed Planck/[WavelengthLightSpeed] = mass where Planck('s Constant) = 6.63 × 10-34 Joules / second LightSpeed = 299,792,458 meters / second Pop in your photon's wavelength as an independent variable and calculate its mass as a dependent variable. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

14-01-2021 19:54
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: You got it wrong. He defined energy as mass divided by the speed of light squared. He was referencing light while I was discussing matter. 2 different things. Au contraire mon frere, in defining the Energy-Mass relationship, he was defining mass as a form of energy ... and specifying exactly how much. This is why you can enter your mass value as an independent variable and calculate the amount of energy it represents as a dependent variable. Try it, it works. Yes, the reverse works as well. Photons have mass although they are not matter. PlanckLightSpeed/Wavelength = Energy = massLightSpeed^2 Ergo PlanckLightSpeed/Wavelength = massLightSpeed^2 Planck/Wavelength = massLightSpeed Planck/[WavelengthLightSpeed] = mass where Planck('s Constant) = 6.63 × 10-34 Joules / second LightSpeed = 299,792,458 meters / second Pop in your photon's wavelength as an independent variable and calculate its mass as a dependent variable. . Don't you know Anglais garcon? It's hc/lamda = E = m(c*c) It's kind of like satellites basically have no weight. Why they stay up so long. With photons, they used to say they had no mass because they don't have a "rest" position. They've changed their thinking on that.
14-01-2021 20:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: You got it wrong. He defined energy as mass divided by the speed of light squared. He was referencing light while I was discussing matter. 2 different things. Au contraire mon frere, in defining the Energy-Mass relationship, he was defining mass as a form of energy ... and specifying exactly how much. This is why you can enter your mass value as an independent variable and calculate the amount of energy it represents as a dependent variable. Try it, it works. Yes, the reverse works as well. Photons have mass although they are not matter. PlanckLightSpeed/Wavelength = Energy = massLightSpeed^2 Ergo PlanckLightSpeed/Wavelength = massLightSpeed^2 Planck/Wavelength = massLightSpeed Planck/[WavelengthLightSpeed] = mass where Planck('s Constant) = 6.63 × 10-34 Joules / second LightSpeed = 299,792,458 meters / second Pop in your photon's wavelength as an independent variable and calculate its mass as a dependent variable. . Don't you know Anglais garcon? It's hc/lamda = E = m(cc) It's kind of like satellites basically have no weight. Why they stay up so long. With photons, they used to say they had no mass because they don't have a "rest" position. They've changed their thinking on that. There is no such thing as a 'rest position'. Zero is decided by you. Speed is relative. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles* Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Physically Speaking:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Speaking of morgues, Harvard is now majoring in selling human body parts	0	15-06-2023 03:18
Joe Biden speaking his two most famous words ever	1	11-03-2023 05:57
How are Canadians physically adapted to cold weather in winter?	4	31-03-2018 02:08
Philosophically speaking, where to M2C2 denialists come from?	6	21-11-2015 02:23