On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:23:32 +0000, Androcles wrote:


"Jeff Krimmel" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:01:27 +0000, Androcles wrote:

As it happens, I just posted this, so I might as well copy and paste.

How do you know you have mass? Can you measure it? Not really. All you
can
do measure is the force between what you refer to as masses. If the
'mass'
happens to be two magnets, that force may be negative. We have an
equation
that relates mass to energy, E = mc^2. We call that 'equivalence'.
Let's look at an electron. It has 'mass'. A little ball of 'matter',
I'll
call it flubber, with a charge. What's charge? What IS the 'matter'
that
I
called flubber? We cannot tell. All we can do is watch how it behaves,
and
if flubber is an energy packet, then mass has no real 'substance',
only force. At the subatomic level, the model breaks down. Newton's
model
only
applies at the macroscopic level, and doesn't take us anywhere into
the realm of particles. Gravity, whatever it may be, is the
attraction of
one
atom to another, and to all other atoms throughout the universe. Some
of those atoms may have succeeded in getting as close as they can to a
neighbour, we call that a molecule, but are still attracted to all
other
atoms. It is the electric force that prevents us becoming a molecule
and sinking onto the ground. At the atomic level, the mass of an
object is nothing more than a count of the atoms it contains. We
measure the attractive force between two objects by the sum of the
atoms each contains, but that doesn't define mass. Flubber, the stuff
electrons and protons are made of, is mass, and flubber is not
necessarily a
substance.

And this is supposed to be insightful how, exactly? We have working
physical models that make quite wonderful predictions for all the
phenomena you describe above. Just because the current models have not
satisfied your (generally healthy) curiosity does not mean that the
models themselves are somehow inadequate.

Jeff

Then tell me what the flubber is with your physical model and show it to
be adequate.

I think your question is ill-posed. Rather than asking what the flubber
"is", you should ask if modern physics makes accurate predictions
regarding the properties and various forms of interaction of this
"flubber" with other "flubbers". Modern physics can do such things quite
well, and I argue that your question is much closer to metaphysics than
the science of physics itself.

Jeff

--
Add an underscore between 'd' and 's' for email.

"Jeff Krimmel" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:23:32 +0000, Androcles wrote:


"Jeff Krimmel" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:01:27 +0000, Androcles wrote:

As it happens, I just posted this, so I might as well copy and paste.

How do you know you have mass? Can you measure it? Not really. All
you
can
do measure is the force between what you refer to as masses. If the
'mass'
happens to be two magnets, that force may be negative. We have an
equation
that relates mass to energy, E = mc^2. We call that 'equivalence'.
Let's look at an electron. It has 'mass'. A little ball of 'matter',
I'll
call it flubber, with a charge. What's charge? What IS the 'matter'
that
I
called flubber? We cannot tell. All we can do is watch how it
behaves,
and
if flubber is an energy packet, then mass has no real 'substance',
only force. At the subatomic level, the model breaks down. Newton's
model
only
applies at the macroscopic level, and doesn't take us anywhere into
the realm of particles. Gravity, whatever it may be, is the
attraction of
one
atom to another, and to all other atoms throughout the universe. Some
of those atoms may have succeeded in getting as close as they can to
a
neighbour, we call that a molecule, but are still attracted to all
other
atoms. It is the electric force that prevents us becoming a molecule
and sinking onto the ground. At the atomic level, the mass of an
object is nothing more than a count of the atoms it contains. We
measure the attractive force between two objects by the sum of the
atoms each contains, but that doesn't define mass. Flubber, the stuff
electrons and protons are made of, is mass, and flubber is not
necessarily a
substance.

And this is supposed to be insightful how, exactly? We have working
physical models that make quite wonderful predictions for all the
phenomena you describe above. Just because the current models have not
satisfied your (generally healthy) curiosity does not mean that the
models themselves are somehow inadequate.

Jeff

Then tell me what the flubber is with your physical model and show it to
be adequate.

I think your question is ill-posed. Rather than asking what the flubber
"is", you should ask if modern physics makes accurate predictions
regarding the properties and various forms of interaction of this
"flubber" with other "flubbers".

I think your reply evades the issue.
You assert the existence of mass without giving any definition of what mass
is.
m = E/c^2 is an accurate prediction of modern physics. So what is 'm'?

Modern physics can do such things quite
well, and I argue that your question is much closer to metaphysics than
the science of physics itself.

Jeff
Modern physics is metaphysical mathematical (and incorrect) theory, whereas
classical physics, the science of physics, asks questions such as "What is
mass?"
You have your definitions reversed.
Androcles