Are Mass and Weight actually the same thing?

[stevepidge]

Could it be that Weight and Mass are the same thing? Could the change in weight when exposed to lesser/greater than earth gravity actually change the mass of an object? Would not everything under the influence of the differing gravitational influence take on "like" mass making it impossible to ascertain?

For instance,on the moon the astronauts are assumed to be the same mass yet weigh less. Would not every object under the influence of the moon's gravity not take on correlating mass producing an illusion that mass is unchanged? When in reality mass DID change relative to objects/people on earth? It seems to me it would be impossible to test.. Just curious.

[querious]

Could it be that Weight and Mass are the same thing? Could the change in weight when exposed to lesser/greater than earth gravity actually change the mass of an object? Would not everything under the influence of the differing gravitational influence take on "like" mass making it impossible to ascertain?

For instance,on the moon the astronauts are assumed to be the same mass yet weigh less. Would not every object under the influence of the moon's gravity not take on correlating mass producing an illusion that mass is unchanged? When in reality mass DID change relative to objects/people on earth? It seems to me it would be impossible to test.. Just curious.

You can use a HORIZONTAL spring-mass oscillator on the moon OR earth and the mass-dependent frequency won't change. Hence mass is independent of the g-field.

[stevepidge]

Could it be that Weight and Mass are the same thing? Could the change in weight when exposed to lesser/greater than earth gravity actually change the mass of an object? Would not everything under the influence of the differing gravitational influence take on "like" mass making it impossible to ascertain?

For instance,on the moon the astronauts are assumed to be the same mass yet weigh less. Would not every object under the influence of the moon's gravity not take on correlating mass producing an illusion that mass is unchanged? When in reality mass DID change relative to objects/people on earth? It seems to me it would be impossible to test.. Just curious.

You can use a HORIZONTAL spring-mass oscillator on the moon OR earth and the mass-dependent frequency won't change. Hence mass is independent of the g-field.

Could not the spring mass oscillator take on a relative mass in regards to it's environment rendering all results a null result? Thanks for the reply.!!

[querious]

Could it be that Weight and Mass are the same thing? Could the change in weight when exposed to lesser/greater than earth gravity actually change the mass of an object? Would not everything under the influence of the differing gravitational influence take on "like" mass making it impossible to ascertain?

For instance,on the moon the astronauts are assumed to be the same mass yet weigh less. Would not every object under the influence of the moon's gravity not take on correlating mass producing an illusion that mass is unchanged? When in reality mass DID change relative to objects/people on earth? It seems to me it would be impossible to test.. Just curious.

You can use a HORIZONTAL spring-mass oscillator on the moon OR earth and the mass-dependent frequency won't change. Hence mass is independent of the g-field.

Could not the spring mass oscillator take on a relative mass in regards to it's environment rendering all results a null result? Thanks for the reply.!!

No. The hanging mass will stretch the spring more on Earth than the Moon, because there's more pull (weight). But bouncing frequency will be the same. So there's a clear difference between the 2 environments, which we can easily observe.

[webolife]

I've pondered this question myself and come to a slightly different wonder...

Both mass and weight[gravitation] are "holding" forces, ie. they tend to "vector" toward a central or original point, the centroid of the system; mass vectors toward the centroid of the object [its molecular system if you will], weight vectors toward a higher system in the universal hierarchy. What if the "holding" force of the universe is a unified pressure field that simply manifests differently at different hierarchical/system levels?

[Krackonis]

Mass, as stated, is independently verifiable with inertial forces. Weight is subjective and only relates to downward pressure of a planet (or moon etc).

What you must link for your hypothesis to be more fully formed is the causative link between mass, inertia and gravity. I think Wal is well on the way to figuring it out, but there is always room for additional speculation. Gravity is an alignment of dipoles according to his theory, this is the force of attraction. However, this does not change the inertial mass of an object.

[nick c]

According to Wal Thornhill, it is important to distinguish between MASS and MATTER, they are not the same thing. Matter is composed of

nucleons and electrons whereas mass is a variable function of matter. The "m" in E=mc2 refers to mass not matter.

E = mc2


Einstein’s famous mathematical expression E=mc2, equating energy and mass is known by almost everyone. However, most textbooks go on to use the word “matter” in place of “mass.” But nowhere has it been shown that mass and matter are interchangeable. In fact, we are entirely ignorant of what constitutes the mass of an object. So it is inadmissible to imply that energy and matter are interchangeable. The ultimate expression of this idea led to the nonsense of the big bang. It seems simpler and more sensible to suggest that both nuclear and chemical energy is released or absorbed by the rearrangement of the resonant orbits of charged particles. It is then common sense to suggest that mass is the measured response of a system of charged particles to an external electrostatic force. The more massive an object, the more the electrostatic force contributes to the elastic deformation of its protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than their acceleration. This is the phenomenon seen in particle accelerators and conventionally attributed to relativistic effects. But relativity reduces to classical physics in a universe where the electrostatic force has near-infinite speed. The first question to be asked is – if it is that simple, why hasn’t it been thought of long ago? The answer seems to lie in the propensity for mathematical theory to supersede common sense and observation. There is also a problem of language when mathematicians attempt to provide real meaning for their symbols.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis/ ... me-basics/

[querious]

According to Wal Thornhill, it is important to distinguish between MASS and MATTER, they are not the same thing. Matter is composed of

nucleons and electrons whereas mass is a variable function of matter. The "m" in E=mc2 refers to mass not matter.

E = mc2


Einstein’s famous mathematical expression E=mc2, equating energy and mass is known by almost everyone. However, most textbooks go on to use the word “matter” in place of “mass.” But nowhere has it been shown that mass and matter are interchangeable. In fact, we are entirely ignorant of what constitutes the mass of an object. So it is inadmissible to imply that energy and matter are interchangeable. The ultimate expression of this idea led to the nonsense of the big bang. It seems simpler and more sensible to suggest that both nuclear and chemical energy is released or absorbed by the rearrangement of the resonant orbits of charged particles. It is then common sense to suggest that mass is the measured response of a system of charged particles to an external electrostatic force. The more massive an object, the more the electrostatic force contributes to the elastic deformation of its protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than their acceleration. This is the phenomenon seen in particle accelerators and conventionally attributed to relativistic effects. But relativity reduces to classical physics in a universe where the electrostatic force has near-infinite speed. The first question to be asked is – if it is that simple, why hasn’t it been thought of long ago? The answer seems to lie in the propensity for mathematical theory to supersede common sense and observation. There is also a problem of language when mathematicians attempt to provide real meaning for their symbols.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis/ ... me-basics/

Everything said about the difference between weight and mass above argues against Wal's statement highlighted above.

And I don't agree we are "entirely ignorant" about what causes mass. Maybe Wal is, but most working physicists now understand nucleon mass to come from the binding energy of the quarks, due to m=E/c2
.

[webolife]

Querious,

"Most working physicists understand...quarks, based on E=mc2 is a statement not necessarily in conflict with "entirely ignorant". Modern physicists work within a paradigm created by mathematics which have been stretched through imagination far beyond the realm of common sense experience. I do not decry mathematics [having taught math for 37 years], nor imagination [taught science those same years, and believe that imagination is the "energy" behind scientific advancement], just wish to point out the distance between abstract math modeling and everyday reality. Things that are the most common parts of our experience [matter, energy, gravity, light, consciousness] are things least understood by "most scientists".

Mass in reference to inertia presents in my mind an interesting conundrum:
Inertial objects are said to be in a state of relative "rest".
Mass is measured by an object's resistance to force[s] trying to move it from that inertial state of "rest".
"Rest" is ephemeral -- it is entirely a condition externally posited to a moving object by its relation to other moving bodies in space which are interacting with it [gravitationally/electrically]. That interaction is measured as the object's "weight" or perhaps "charge".
So while you may correctly observe that things weigh differently in different gravitational environments, yet their mass remains unchanged; yet you cannot separate the forces that infer "mass" on the object from the forces inferring "weight" upon it.

[kiwi]

From the Holoscience article on Anti Gravity....

When Professor Eric Laithwaite [1921-97] was invited to give the Faraday Lecture in 1974-5 at the Royal Institution, he brought with him an array of gyroscopes – from toy ones that balanced on model Eiffel towers, to a huge 50lb one that he spun up and raised effortlessly above his head with one hand. “Look,” he exclaimed to the assembled dignitaries, “It’s lost weight!” ignoring their evident shock at such a heretical claim.

“I thought my fellow scientists would be genuinely interested, so I wasn’t prepared for the utter hostility of their reaction,” Laithwaite recalled later. The Royal Institution did not publish his lectures. Laithwaite’s nomination for the Fellowship of the Royal Society was cancelled. He retired from Imperial College in 1981 pretty much in disgrace. “None of my critics could ever explain to me how a 50lb spinning wheel loses weight,” he said.
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/antigravity/

Has this phenomena every had a modern day evaluation? .... a situation where the increase in r.p.m etc are all monitored to see the ratio of weight-loss to the r.p.m increase's and whatever other variables there are?

cheers

[Melusine]

From the Holoscience article on Anti Gravity....

When Professor Eric Laithwaite [1921-97] was invited to give the Faraday Lecture in 1974-5 at the Royal Institution, he brought with him an array of gyroscopes – from toy ones that balanced on model Eiffel towers, to a huge 50lb one that he spun up and raised effortlessly above his head with one hand. “Look,” he exclaimed to the assembled dignitaries, “It’s lost weight!” ignoring their evident shock at such a heretical claim.

Has this phenomena every had a modern day evaluation? .... a situation where the increase in r.p.m etc are all monitored to see the ratio of weight-loss to the r.p.m increase's and whatever other variables there are?

Professor Laithwaite in action here (3'18" vid)
Modern day version of the experiment here with a 19 kg (42 lbs) wheel
And... modern day evaluation here

[querious]

Querious,

So while you may correctly observe that things weigh differently in different gravitational environments, yet their mass remains unchanged; yet you cannot separate the forces that infer "mass" on the object from the forces inferring "weight" upon it.

Then please explain why the horizontal vs vertical spring-mass system is not a perfect way to distinguish mass from weight.

[querious]

Querious,

"Most working physicists understand...quarks, based on E=mc2 is a statement not necessarily in conflict with "entirely ignorant". Modern physicists work within a paradigm created by mathematics which have been stretched through imagination far beyond the realm of common sense experience. I do not decry mathematics [having taught math for 37 years], nor imagination [taught science those same years, and believe that imagination is the "energy" behind scientific advancement], just wish to point out the distance between abstract math modeling and everyday reality. Things that are the most common parts of our experience [matter, energy, gravity, light, consciousness] are things least understood by "most scientists".

Sorry, but I really don't think your subtle point about the limits of human knowledge where we have no direct experience has any bearing on what Wal said. He just likes to claim that "Modern Physics has NO concept of how matter manifests mass"; see 7:42 of An Electric Cosmology for the 21st Century

There's a very good book about the origin of nucleon mass: "The Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces"

[webolife]

I'm not actually saying that there's no difference, just that the two concepts are inseparably linked.
Even if you attempt to apply your spring force in a gravitational equilibrium [eg. on the ISS], the objects being related are under the same forces of acceleration that "determine" either the mass or the weight. Or in other words, "gravity" determines mass by its relation to the definition of inertia [ie. every "rest" situation is a complex system of ephemerides], and also determines weight by its affect on acceleration.

[querious]

Even if you attempt to apply your spring force in a gravitational equilibrium [eg. on the ISS], the objects being related are under the same forces of acceleration that "determine" either the mass or the weight.

On the ISS, you can easily determine mass with a spring by measuring the frequency. And the frequency would be the same if you were orbiting close to the sun.

But you'd be completely clueless as to the object's weight, because there wouldn't be any.

I hope this answers the OP's question.