E=mc2 questions?

An object with a mass of 100g only has a mass of 100g because of the force imposed by G.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

three pages of " yes it is, no it is not " is not interesting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The mass of an object is its weight, .0981n undone is 100g which is the mass and the same has its weight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Furthermore I'll give odds he never understands what E = mc^2 means.

 

100g

I know what it means, but i do not think you do.

If an object on the ground has a mass of 100g or 0.1kg, the force is always 0.981n which is the weight of force, in doing E=mc2 of an object, how do we account for the 0.981 n of energy loss to G that is always being lost?

 

Reported for "Persistent f*cking stupidity".

 

Alleluia.

OK, so, 1kg weighs 9.8N on the surface of the Earth, because g, the acceleration due to gravity, is ~9.8m/sec². Right?

But on the surface of the moon, where the acceleration due to gravity is ~1.6m/sec², 1kg weighs ~1.6N - about 1/6th of what it does on Earth.

So, the mass remains 1kg, while the weight changes.

This illustrates that mass is independent of weight. Anybody who confuses the two will be incapable of doing the simplest problem in mechanics.

 

I've reported him also. It will do no good. For some reason he's allowed to continue on posting nonsense, which reflects poorly on this forum as a science site.

 

Shut up troll, I know you keep pushing for a ban because you have mental issues all the time.

You are not talking about the thread as per normal , just the same old shit trying to force your discipline on people.

It is simple what i am saying , E=mc2-G

The constant of G always imposing an energy loss from an object to the force of G, that is why we do not fly off the ground.


I have asked simple questions and you try to turn it into something else.

I ask again about the loss of E=mc2 to gravity and how does this relate to atoms and even the Caesium clock?

 

I get what you saying , i can do the maths, but 1kg is still a weight unit, ask any weight lifter, it is technically the same.

Where do you get 1kg from, you weight it right?

 

So have I. It is becoming hard to believe that he can be genuinely so ignorant. It may be trolling or he may be a psychiatric case. I really wonder why he is allowed to post in the hard science sections of the forum. It must look terrible to casual readers.

 

I really do not understand you people, you are very strange and must live some extraordinary eccentric life. I am asking questions, the title is asking for clarification of E=mc2, and has yet your clarification is terrible.

You are really weird people.

 

Nope, I keep pushing for a ban because you're a deluded crackpot.

False.

False.

Wrong - I pointed out a basic flaw in your understanding.

Not at the start you didn't (that question was a later amendment), and it's a nonsensical question: there is NO "loss of E=mc^2 to gravity".

The ONLY possible relationship of E=mc^2 to caesium clocks is in your uneducated and deluded mind.

 

You can get 1kg from measuring any force applied to the object. Weight happens to be convenient for us on the surface of the Earth, for small objects. But if the object were on a low friction mounting you could do it equally well with a spring balance, applying a known force and measuring the resulting acceleration (F=ma).

If you persist is claiming a kg is a unit of weight, when you have just told me weight is measured in Newtons, then you are either certifiable or a troll.

 

You simply can't, or won't , understand the difference between mass and weight. It's something we learn in 9th grade, which makes me suspect you never made it that far.

 

You really are a proper troll aren't you?
It is a game between you and your troll friends to see how many members you can get banned, I bet the mods are sick of your whining day in and day out.

You always avoid the questions people ask directly and try to change everything around to suit your trollish behaviour.

I pitty you for real,

You comment yet you do not even understand what i am on about, and that is amusing, you do not even understand what you are commenting on because you do not understand me, and this shows the true troll and your only intentions on these forums you troll day in , and day out.

Your a professional troll sir, and I know it because you are everywhere.

 

Alex dont join the trolls , you are ok in my book, of cause i know the present difference, but it doe snot exclude that mass is the weight measurement of an object and is the same thing.

If you know the newtons of something that is stationary, you know exactly how many kg it is., it is the same thing like it or not.

 

"The newtons of something stationary". Ye gods.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The Fn is never 0. there is always a force doing work on the object.

 

Really?
Provide an example of a question I've avoided.

Nope, I point out that YOU don't understand what you're talking about.
If you're not talking about what is in your posts (i.e. the actual science involved) then it's YOUR failure because you haven't explained what YOU mean.

I'm not in Iceland, nor Dnepropetrovsk nor Peterborough (among numerous other places), thus you're wrong and I'm therefore not a "professional troll".