what is mass?
>>16779112ask your mom
E/(C^2)
>>16779112somethign that interacts with higgs boson. apart from neutrinos, thems are freaky mass
>>16779134dat mass
>>16779216She's a phat mass white girl.
>>16779112Some spooky bullshit that makes spacetime exist, when you consider that massless objects have no valid frame of reference.
>>16779197What does it mean for energy to be divided by the speed of light times the speed of light?
>>16779379Idk but it's fucking profound.
>>16779379>>16779380Um, isn't that just times 1?
>>16779403no because it's divided by (speed of light times the speed of light)
the amount of resistance to change or some shit. it has to do with energy as well since that's related to change in state. so maybe the resistance to change of state? but i don't know why fundamental particles have different resistances to change of state.
>>16779411Oh lol funny how brackets change everything.
>>16779112In the Roman Catholic Church (and also in some other Christian traditions like Anglican and Orthodox), the Mass is the central act of worship. It commemorates and makes present the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, especially through the celebration of the Eucharist (Holy Communion). The word Mass comes from the Latin phrase Ite, missa est (“Go, it is the dismissal”), which was said at the end of the service in early Christianity.
>>16779449why do they celebrate a certain group of people sacrificing someone they liked? that's pretty weird
>>16779463>he had to die for mental_insanity reasonsI keep saying, humans are seriously deranged, as a whole. stay away from humans
>>16779448how would you say it in english, smart guy?
>>16779112I just want to know by what means gravity is transmitted and why is it indistinguishable from acceleration.
>>16779112baby don't weigh me, dont weigh me, no mass
>>16779197What a terrible circular definition since the definition of E specifically depends on mass among other things.
>>16779431>it has to do with energy as wellOf course, energy has to do with mass, energy is a derivative unit derived from mass, space, and time such that E = 1 kg⋅m2⋅s−2 where kg is the unit of mass, m is the unit of space and s is the unit of time.
>>16779449No, mass means body, it was applied to physical bodies in the early 1400s before the church adopted it as the name of their gatherings in the late 1500s. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mass
interactions with the higgs field
>>16779112where your parents used to go every sunday, and is why they weren't depressed like you
>>16779469It was a reference to Morrowind, stop being a turbo autist.
>>16779764This is false. Mass depends on the energy of the system and not the other way around. The original point being made with that equation has always been that mass is an emergent property of energy.
>>16779112>what is mass?RESISTANCE TO SPACE-TIME.
>>16779379It means the SI unit for mass should be joules per 299792458 metres per second per 299792458 metres per second (in an inertial reference frame)
Something something higgs field
>>16780451>Mass depends on the energy of the system and not the other way around.No, mass is in kg and E is in kg/s*m/s, so E is a derivative of mass over time by a derivative of space over time.>mass is an emergent property of energy.No, energy is a second derivative of mass, space, and time, you need all three to have energy, but you only need mass to have mass.
i was thinking about this today
>>16780451>The original point being made with that equation has always been that mass is an emergent property of energy.No, originally the equation is famously written as E=mc^2 because the point was to show how to calculate the emergent energy of a body of mass.
>>16782058Your whole argument here is mathematical convention? Disregarded.>>16782118>originally the equation is famously written as E=mc^WrongWrongWrongThe equation was originally written as m=E/C^2 as evidenced by the following:https://www.astro.puc.cl/~rparra/tools/PAPERS/e_mc2.pdfE=MC^2 was popularized by its association with the nuclear bomb.
>>16782118>>16782441Relevant bit of the paper:>If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that 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/9 × 1020, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes."L" being "E." It's archaic notation.
>>16779112things with energy that are moving slow enough are interfered with by the higgs field. this interference is what we detect as mass. its like a traffic jam, but with particles instead of cars. meanwhile fags in the HOV lane get to skip the traffic.
>>16779112Mass is defined thorough newtons third law and law of gravitation.Both equations include two unknown variables, mass and force, you can solve for them and find the acceleration, which you can directly measure.As you get the acceleration, you can then use it to solve what mass and force are, from the two equations.To summarize: Mass is just an unknown variable in a system of two equations, the other variable being force. Any other interpretation is biased by culture and meaningless.
anyone saying mass is energy is a dumb child. The concept of energy is derived from kinematics. newtonian or relativistic, and requires the concept of mass. To say mass is energy is like saying mass is mass. Its a stupid circular argument.The answer is that mass is defined by two equations, newtons law of gravitation and newton's third law. The equations have another variable, force. You use both equations to solve for mass and force.
>>16782577ok so what is mass?
What is matter? Anything with mass, or anything that… matters? I usually find the latter to be more satisfying. Photons and gluons are particles *without* mass.
>>16782655I told you retard, its a variable in newton's third law and newtons law of gravitation. These two equations have another variable, force. You solve for both and can obtain force and mass, assuming you measure acceleration, which you can measure directly.Energy is simply a constant of motion associated with kinematics i.e newtons third law you fucking faggot. None of these things have any reality except as variables in equations, except for things you can measure such as position, speed or acceleration.
>>16782964imagine being this retard.
>>16782577Newton was superceded you dumb child.Mass and energy aren't the same thing since you can have energy without mass. But you can't have mass without energy. So mass is downstream from energy and very obviously not the other way around.
>>16782996>>16782995Who gives a fuck about who did what first? Neither mass, energy nor any of these concepts are anything more than numbers in an equation.
>>16782996>Mass and energy aren't the same thing since you can have energy without mass.I never said they are the same. They are nothing. They are just numbers in a system of equations.
>>16783014>Neither mass, energy nor any of these concepts are anything more than numbers in an equation.You could argue that about anything. Working equations reflect underlying reality. There is something real, beyond the equations, that these variables represent. Non-retards call those things "mass" and "energy." >>16783016>I never said they are the same.I never said you did say that. You vey much said the opposite abd that statement was a half assed concession on that point followed by a refutation of your core premise.
>>16783017>There is something real, beyond the equationsYes, observables such as space and position. Things like mass are literally nothing more than variables in an equation and are defined as being nothing more than numbers. You will never directly see what mass or energy are
>>16783017>followed by a refutation of your core premise.Neither mass nor energy are the same, similar or opposite to anything. They are numbers in equations and are not real things
>>16779112Music, Bach wrote beautiful masses
>>16783032There is something interacting with your measurement device which causes the needle to move. This is observable.It is tautologically real on the basis that it has real impacts on the physical world. No amount of repeating "it's just numbers" like a child will change that. "Mass" and "energy" describe real properties an object or system can have.>>16783034Reading comprehension, nigger. Also see above.
>>16783037>There is something interacting with your measurement device which causes the needle to move. This is observable.Mystical mumbo jumbo. Ever heard about the scientific method? Retard
>>16783045Kek. You lost, tranny.
>>16783050You have never witnessed this alleged ghost called "mass" which you are so desperate to understand as if it was real.When you see a needle move, you witness position, space and time.Everything else is literally imagined. A number in an equation with no meaning outside of the equations.
>>16783052Look, dude. I know you think you're trolling but it's getting stale. You can feel mass by picking a thing up. There is absolutely no reason you would give preference to the sensory data coming in through nerves in your eyes than you would to sensory data coming in through nerves in your muscles. You could try to argue thingle like position, space, and time are more "fundamental" than things like mass or energy and you might have a coherent argument. But that's not the argument you're making, now, is it?
>>16783058>You can feel mass by picking a thing upYou feel force which causes a displacement. Only thing you are witnessing is motion and whatever physiological sensation your brain conjures. If you measure mass with an instrument, you will only see motion of a needle or a digital number i.e a number
>>16783064>Only thing you are witnessing is motion and whatever physiological sensation your brain conjuresWell really the only thing you witness is the sensation your brain conjures. But you miss the point.We define "mass" as the property which causes "motion on a needle" to a particular class of devices under well defined circumstances. The motions of the device are measuring *something* and we call that *something* mass. Whether mass is an emergent property of something else (which it is) does not make it "not real" any more than an ant hill is "not real."
>>16783070>which causes "motion on a needlThe motion is enough description. Mumbo jumbo "hidden hand" a k.a spirits of the mountain are not scientific concepts.
>>16783086so you have no idea what mass is
>>16783088A variable in two equations
>>16783086Things having properties is a scientific concept. How much the needle moves when an object is placed on it is a property of that object. We call it mass.
>>16783093can a variable in two equations hurt you?
The measure of how much an object resists accelertion.
>>16783098>Things having properties is a scientific concept.The property in question is a variable appearing in two equations. Its a number. Thats all the structure it has, a number. Its simpler than a point because a point has a coordinate triplet.Theres no other answer to what mass is, its a number and no more description in depth is possible.>>16783105Thats described by newtons third law. Its not the definition of mass tho, as you need newtons law of gravitation as well.
>>16782996>you can have energy without mass. No, the units of energy include mass, E is in joules which is derivative and made of (kg/s)*(m/s).>you can't have mass without energy. No, mass is its own metric, the only thing mass depends on is mass, 1kg=1kg.
>>16783032>You will never directly see what massMass is weight divided by gravity, you can literally directly weight yourself and see your own mass as affected by earth's gravity.
>>16783052>When you see a needle move, you witness position, space and time.No most people see needles move on the scale when measuring their weight which is just mass times gravity's pull and if you really wanted you could do some freefalling in a plane to see only the needle move with respect to mass by canceling out the gravity.
>>16783086>The motion is enough description.Mass doesn't cause motion if its motion is canceled out by contact with a greater mass, it only causes the feeling of weight.
>>16783126>you need newtons law of gravitation as well.No that gives you weight, mass is when you divide the gravitation out of weight and mass is necessarily part of far more than just two equations.
>>16783163How much mass does a photon have?
>>16783170p/v
>>16783167>No that gives you weight,No retard, you need two equations to define what mass is fucking nigger faggot. Newton's third law has two unknown variables, mass and force. The second equation, newton's law of gravitation defines what force is in terms of mass.With both equations you can solve for mass and force. Acceleration is directly measured>>16783166>Mass doesn't cause motion if its motion is canceled out by contact with a greater mass,The earth is squishy like all solid matter and moves under weight. Contact forces require mechanical displacement of atoms in the solid
>>16783181>you need two equations to define what mass isNo, you need one physical metric, the kilogram.>massMass isn't "unknown", it is measured in kg with scales.Force is a derivative of mass in space over time, it is the which is why 1N=1 (kg/s)(m/s) and it is generally defined as what is necessary to accelerate one kilogram of mass at the rate of one metre per second squared.Energy is a derivative of force in space which is why 1J= 1 (kg/s)(m^2/s) and it is generally defined as the amount of work done when a force of one newton displaces a body through a distance of one metre.>defines what force is in terms of mass.Exactly force like energy is defined by mass, not the other way around.>moves under weight.Not really and especially not as much motion as would happen if it weren't encountering the normal force of earth's mass.
>>16783202Kill yourself faggot
>>16783205I accept your concession, retard.Mass is intrinsic while force and energy are derivatives of mass in space over time.
>>16783208Theres no concession. There is no point in arguing with a brain dead faggot like you. Kill yourself in a painful way you fucking piece of shit
>>16783294Yes there is, you can't argue that mass is intrinsic while force and energy are derived from mass, you can only resort to name calling bullshit.
>>16783298NTA but are you the same retard that thinks mass is more fundamental than energy because of the way SI units are constructed?
>>16783519Why would SI units be constructed that way if it weren't that way, huh?
>>16783530Because mass is an easy thing to measure. Human systems of measurement are approximations of underlying reality and do not, themselves, define it.The existence of massless particles instantly throws your argument out the window.
>>16779112...Baby don't hurt me...
>>16783694>Because mass is an easy thing to measure.Yes because it is only made of one unit, you don't have to have mass spread over space and time being moved by so many units of space before it exists.>The existence of massless particles instantly throws your argument out the window.Photons aren't massless, their mass is p/v, they just lack mass when they stop existing and they only exist when they are in motion, since the get obliterated when they impact something else hard enough to come to rest and cause the thing to react with some combination of absorbing and/or reflecting/refracting it.
it's mostly just the strong nuclear force
>>16785725Relitivistic mass is E/c^2. p/v is just another way of expressing that relationship.By the very definition you're using, mass is downstream from energy.
>>16785773>Relitivistic mass is E/c^2. p/v is just another way of expressing that relationship.Ok and its only its own photonic body once it moves away from the body it is being ejected from and it can only do that if it is moving which is why photons only exist when they are moving and they always have mass and get destroyed when they come to rest because they only come to rest when they encounter another body which is exactly when they stop existing on their own.>By the very definition you're using, mass is downstream from energy.No its not, your equations show you have to divide out things from energy to get back to mass alone which is why the equation is usually written as E=mc^2 since the combination of mass moving through space at lightspeed is what results in energy.
>>16785776A photon's mass depends on your reference frame, hence why it's typically denoted as a massless particle. >>16785776>your equations show you have to divide out things from energy to get back to mass aloneElaborate.In special relativity, momentum, "p," is E/c. "v" is the velocity which for a photon is c. (E/c)/c = E/c^2c is a constant. E is the variable. M is output.>>16785776>the equation is usually written as E=mc^2See >>16782441M=E/c^2 was the way it was originally expressed because mass is a function of energy and not the other way around.
>>16785782>A photon's mass depends on your reference frame,No a photon's mass is p/v.>Elaborate.What is there to elaborate? You took E and divided out c^2 to arrive at mass instead of adding onto it to add something up to mass.>c is a constant. E is the variable. M is output.Yes and you are removing c from E which means Energy is the combination of m and c, mass is not the combination, it is what is left when you divide out all the spacetime elements embedded in c from E.>M=E/c^2 was the way it was originally expressed because mass is a function of energy and not the other way around.If mass were a function of E there would be direct relationships, you wouldn't be dividing c out of E to come up with mass, you would be combing them to get mass, but its not how it works, energy only occurs when you do a multiplicative combination of mass, space, and time (or more actually when you take the fifth derivative of mass moving through space and time since it goes mass's location, dt => mass's velocity, dt => mass's acceleration, dt => mass's force, then dt => mass's energy).
>>16785788>No a photon's mass is p/v.And p depends on reference frame (see: Redshift)>you are removing c from E which means Energy is the combination of m and cYour conclusion does not follow from your premises.Literally just look up "mass-energy equivalence."
>>16785791>And p depends on reference frame (see: Redshift)The mass is still p/v, its not massless and it doesn't throw anything about my argument out the window.>Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.it does though, you showed the equation yourself, mass is not the combination of energy and speed, it is what you have when you divide out speed from energy.Energy on the other hand is the multiplicative combination of mass and speed, so requires both elements and is a derivative of something with respect to another derivative unit rather than a fundamental unit that can be exist on its own merits without mass and speed.>Literally just look up "mass-energy equivalence."The equation is literally already ITT, its what we have been discussing and its clear that energy is the combination of mass and speed, mass is energy divided by speed, not combined to it, energy is derivative and mass is fundamental, mass has its own unique units and energy is made of of units of mass, so it is dependent on mass, not the other way around.
>>16785799>its not masslessIts mass, under this definition, is subjective. Which is why it's pretty rare you'll see a physicist even discussing relitavistic mass at all. Under the satandard definition of mass (rest mass) photons are massless.>>16785799>mass is not the combination of energy and speed, it is what you have when you divide out speed from energy.You're not "taking away speed." C^2 should not be interpreted as the "speed" of anything here. It's a constant.Nothing about division should make you treat the equation any differently. It's a scaling factor of 1/c^2.
>>16785803Photons aren't ever at rest though, when they are "at rest", they are part of some greater body, they only become photons when they separate from those bodies at high speed at which point they are not "at rest".>C^2 should not be interpreted as the "speed" of anything here.C is literally named the speed of light because its units are the units of velocity, it is not only interpreted as speed, the constant is named as such.>Nothing about division should make you treat the equation any differently.I am treating it like c has units of speed and you must dividing out those units instead of combining them which is why mass is more fundamental since energy is the combination of mass and speed squared.>It's a scaling factor of 1/c^2.Yes and c has units, so you are divide them out of the energy scale to get the mass rather than combing like it does with the mass to find the energy.
>>16785807>Photons aren't ever at rest thoughNot relevant.Their "mass" is fully dependent on frequency. It can be any arbitrarily high or low value (to certain obvious limitations). The rest of this post is you circling back to sperging about units and naming conventions. Conventions are made by humans for human convenience and have nothing to do with underlying reality. If you can't understand that, then you're too retarded to have this discussion.1/c^2 is about 1 x 10^(-17) m/s^2. It's a very small number the E gets multiplied by.
>>16785813>Not relevant.It is when your entirely argument is about them having no mass when at rest.>Their "mass" is fully dependent on frequency. It can be any arbitrarily high or low value (to certain obvious limitations). Ok, but that has nothing do to with them being massless, they aren't massless, their mass is p/v.>The rest of this post is you circling back to sperging about units and naming conventions.Its not just about the way it is named, it is entirely functional and about the the actual need for space, time and mass before there is energy since energy is dependent on all of them, but you only need mass before there is mass because mass is only dependent on itself.> It's a very small number the E gets multiplied by.Ok but implicit in that is the units of the value, c is not just the number, it is also the units associated with the number because there are other physical qualities that went into the calculation of the constant c and those are dependent on space and time such that when you divide it out of energy you are dividing out those units rather than combining things to calculate the mass, the energy is what needs to have mass, space and time all combined in order to be realized.
>>16785818If it was convention that E was just measured as its own unit, let's say "e's," then mass would be measured in e/m/s. It's arbitrary.
>>16785831But its not because that isn't how e works, it isn't just its own thing independent of other factors, it is mass spread over space and time, multiplying by more units is completely different than dividing them out of it and even in your perfect scenario, mass is not the multiplicative combination of everything else, it is still what happens when you remove elements of speed from energy and it can still be measured on its own while energy needs the mass to be moving through space over time.
>>16785835>But its not because that isn't how e works, it isn't just its own thing independent of other factors, it is mass spread over space and time,Circular reasoning. This is precisely the claim you're attempting to prove. It's wrong.>>16785835>multiplying by more units is completely different than dividing them out of itWhethere the units are being "multiplied" or "divided out" depends entirely on the conventions under which the units were defined.I woll say this one last time:The only reason, literally the only. Fucking. Reason. Units of mass are standalone and energy is not is because human brings defined it that way.When redshift occurs to a photon, the photon isn't shedding mass and that's what lowers the frequency. The frequency lowers because the same energy is being dispersed over a wider area, the relativistic mass drops as a result of the lower energy density.
>>16785725>Photons aren't massless@grok?
>>16786052>Circular reasoningYes you can circularly define mass and energy since they both depend on each other, but you can't define mass in a way that it compounds all the other since that isn't what it is, they only way to coherently do it is if energy is the compound unless you just flip the definitions of mass and energy so you are using the name energy to describe what we quantify as mass.>Whethere the units are being "multiplied" or "divided out" depends entirely on the conventions under which the units were defined.No, it is the inherent relationship of mass and energy, unless you are just talking about swapping them around and calling energy mass and mass energy and turning it to M = ec^2.>Units of mass are standalone and energy is not is because human brings defined it that way.Then feel free to actually demonstrate it and show how you can possibly define energy and mass in a way that energy isn't the compounded of mass, space and time, but mass is the compound of energy, space and time.>>16786162Photons have a mass of p/v, they aren't massless.>It's wrong.Then feel free to do it, show how to relate the energy, mass, space, and time where mass is the multiplicatively compounded unit rather than energy.
>>16779112matter formed by sound
>>16786691Why and when did it stop being formed that way and start being formed by pair production as we see now?
>>16786674>Then feel free to actually demonstrate it and show how you can possibly define energy and mass in a way that energy isn't the compounded of mass, space and time, but mass is the compound of energy, space and time.>>16786052>When redshift occurs to a photon, the photon isn't shedding mass and that's what lowers the frequency. The frequency lowers because the same energy is being dispersed over a wider area, the relativistic mass drops as a result of the lower energy density.
>>16787264What? You didn't derive any units which is obviously what is meant by define rather than just put together nonsensical words.>energy is being dispersed over a wider area, the relativistic mass dropsYou are still making energy composed of mass combined with area instead of making mass composed of energy combined with area, so mass is still fundamental and energy is derived from it.I will help you start instead of referring to energy in Joules with units kg*m^2/s^2, we are now calling it energons and it is only made up of unit e.Now show what the new compounded units of mass and space are in terms of energons multiplied by the others with respect to time without dividing out the other units since as it stands energy is the compounded combination with respect to time, not the other way around, given:Energy(J) = kg*m^2/s^2mass(kg) = J*s^2/m^2space(m) = J*s^2/kgtime(s) = sqrt(kg*m^2/J)So how can you possibly, logically rearrange this relationship in accordance with actual measurable reality to prove that mass is compounded energy in space over time instead of energy being compounded mass in space over time.
>>16787955You're being word-brained again. Units are an arbitrary human concept. Division is multiplication so your goalpost is arbitrary. Respond to the point about redshift or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>16788292>Units are an arbitrary human concept.No or you would arbitrarily be able to make mass the compounded quality, but you have demonstrated that you can't do that because its not the relationship that mass and energy have with each other and with space and time, mass is fundamental, energy is the compounded quality.>Respond to the point about redshift or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.Why would it be on me to respond to something that you are only using as a distraction because you can't respond to my points since you have no idea what you are talking about and why units are formed the way they are and you can't "arbitrarily" form any units in the manner you keep claiming where energy is fundamental and the other units are compounded derivatives of energy instead of the other way around.The energy is dispersed over a wider area because the mass is dispersed over a wider area lower energy density isn't because of energy, it is because of how density is defined as mass over space, and energy is defined as the force of an accelerating mass across a distance of space over time they both change at the same time because both sides of an equation need to balance, its not that one causes the other, its just the relationship between mass, density, and energy where mass is fundamental and density and energy are compounding mass with elements of space and time.
>>16779379It's means it's energy condensed into a small volume.Take a fairly large "energy amount", divide it by a really large square area in time, The fraction approaches zero, signifying a small mass has a huge amount of energy trapped in oscillation within spacetimeThat's the conceptuality of it broken down into basically worded concept.Some midwit spergs will jump in to complexity it and add jargon but that's the basics and they don't know how they'd feel if they didn't have breakfast this morning so fuck em
>>16788927>energy condensed into a small volume.What is the volume of c^2?>The fraction approaches zero, signifying a small massC is a constant, there is no approaching 0, the only way you approach 0 is if E approaches 0 since E and mass have a direct relationship in that equation.
>>16779112Energy of the object in an inertial reference frame where it is at rest. It's embarrassing that /sci/ doesn't know this.
>>16779112Mass = measure of how hard it is to move something.They teach it in scool.
>>16788883>No or you would arbitrarily be able to make mass the compounded quality, but you have demonstrated that you can't do that because its not the relationship that mass and energy have with each other and with space and time, mass is fundamental, energy is the compounded quality.I have done it earlier ITT. Others have done it ITT. You did it in the post where you posed the challenge:>>16787955>mass(kg) = J*s^2/m^2Your complaint has been addressed.>>16788883>The energy is dispersed over a wider area because the mass is dispersed over a wider areaAs we've already established, photons have no intrinsic mass. Their mass depends entirely on their frequency which is a function of energy.
>>16789010>I have done it earlier ITT. Others have done it ITT. You did it in the post where you posed the challenge:No you didn't.>Your complaint has been addressed.No, it hasn't that formula proves that mass is energy divided by space, not compounded with it, your claim is that you can construct it such that mass is the compounded more complex unit rather than energy being mass across space over time.>As we've already established, photons have no intrinsic mass. No, we established that the mass of a photon is p/v and they only exist when in motion because they are still part of some other body when in rest rather than being cast off as their own particle.>frequency which is a function of energy.Frequency is the inverse of time, it is not a function of energy, energy is a function of frequency since it has the s-2.
>>16789597>divided by space, not compounded with itDivision is multiplcation. We've been over this. Go back to school.
>>16783014fr none of ts will get you laid
How much an object resists acceleration. More mass means the harder it is to accelerate.
>>16790318>How much an object resists acceleration. More mass means the harder it is to accelerate.White conservative physics obsolete. Modern physics is not about objects being acted upon and resisting. It's about subjects and consent and definitely NOT about a subject's weight.
>>16779112it's crazy that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same thing
