Quote:
|
Originally Posted by papageno
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maksutov
A shame your target audience doesn't seem to comprehend physics fundamentals. :-?
|
My jaw dropped to the ground when I realized nutant gene 71's misconception about the kilogram. 
It's a pity that he persists in it. |
Sure hope you didn't break a tooth!
You forget I wrote in my above, July 5th:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
To "weigh" mass is merely to subject it to Earth's gravitational acceleration, a = 9.8 m/s^2, so its "weight" could be said to be 9.8 kg m s^-2, but it's still the same kilogram. The apples still "weigh" one kilogram on the balance scale, their mass had not changed. If per equivalence you accelerated the basket of apples by the same rate, they would show the same "weight", but they are still one kilogram of mass, mass had not changed.
The question then remains, that if this one "kilogram" of apples were accelerated at 98 m/s^2 (where Earth's G' is tenfold), would it still be the same "kilogram"? No, the "weight" would change to 98 kg m/s^2, but the mass is still the same (1 kg) basket of apples, but now they weight 10 kgs. Same 1 kg. basket of apples, same mass, but Earth changed its G. What happened? Does the balance scale tip towards the apples rather than towards the one cubic decimeter of water? No, it does not. Now the cubic water mass is 10 kg. Does 1 kg = 10 kg? No sir, it does not.
|
Mass does not change. But it's
measured inertial mass, per equivalence, just like its weight,
does change. Place 1 kilogram cubic decimeter of water on a balance scale in a 10 G universe, it would still balance with 1 kg of platinum-iridium rod on the other side; but this rod/cubic water is now on a scale in 10G; so it registers (each side independently) as 10 kg. That's the equivalence of gravitational mass (weight/gravity related) and inertial mass (acceleration related/equivalence) that makes a difference in the new measure of mass, where the same 1 kg of mass registered differently, now as m' = 10 kg for G' = 10 G. And that dear sir, is the conundrum.
It's not that the Earth is suddenly ten times larger in mass, same planet same mass, but the G changed, and that is what changes the (measured) mass, not the acceleration, but the mass. Remember my original question:
Hypothetically, per Equivalence Principle, what would kilograms be for any given mass in a variable G?
You answer it with 'acceleration' changes in terms of G; I answer 'mass' changes in terms of G.
Your answer makes sense in a 1 G universe, forever universally the same. My answer makes sense in a universe where G is variable. But I know you cannot (or will not?) see this. My conclusion is that if you
did see it, you'd have to admit to the possibility our current take on the universe is possibly wrong, and variable gravity is a real possibility. By rejecting my idea, you're safe, nothing need change, and G is a universal constant.
I do not wish to offend you Sir, but that is how I read your responses, though I do appreciate them all the same, really.
