| Author | Message | ||
     Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9688 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
there is no real time dilation....it's just relative correction for time values....i doubt anybody clearly understands what relativity means including the theory proponent | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9687 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
an accelarating object means we are dealing with two frames of reference....1. observer frame of reference 2. reference frame of accelarating body.....when mass of object increases in observer's reference frame then we cannot say essence remains same....it needs more force to accelarate with increase in velocity according to relativity | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9686 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
I think i got the answer.....possibly mass independent coloumb force field can be used to determine standard force and use this to find inertial masses of objects | ||
| Cyberabadsinnodu Side Hero Username: Cyberabadsinnodu Post Number: 3119 Registered: 02-2010 Posted From: 67.163.149.59 Rating: N/A |
kiki dinemma jeevitham inter lo entha cinteresting ga undevi...physics....software nothing but google...chass jeevitham..  anduke GIS ki move avudham ani decided.... ఎంత చికాగో యునివర్సిటీ లో చదువుకున్నా చిలక్కొట్టుడికి సరైన ఇంగ్లీషు పదం దొరుకుతుందా..!! | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 433 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 192.11.175.219 Rating: N/A |
Thx,MS  . | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7194 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
yes, btw, good posts, very straight to the point as always. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 432 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 192.11.175.219 Rating: N/A |
The interesting thing is that, physically, no difference has been found between gravitational and inertial mass. Many experiments have been performed to check the values and the experiments always agree to within the margin of error for the experiment. Einstein used the fact that gravitational and inertial mass were equal to begin his Theory of General Relativity in which he postulated that gravitational mass was the same as inertial mass and that the acceleration of gravity is a result of a 'valley' or slope in the space-time continuum that masses 'fell down' much as pennies spiral around a hole in the common donation toy at your favorite chain store. http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae305.cfm I too intuitively think the both the masses are the same as may be many of the people here | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 431 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 192.11.175.219 Rating: N/A |
I got your initial question and i see your chicken and egg problem. when explaining it actually most of the people here are of the same view and telling the same thing in different manner. everybody agrees that the mass is not measured directly. my point is the essence of things would remain the same but we would have to understand things relatively, measure things relatively and problem comes when compare values between two frames of references. i do not understand counter intuitive predictions of relativity though. time dilation and all. | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 430 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 192.11.225.114 Rating: N/A |
what i actually mean is the essence or invariability of things do not change. whatever changes that relativity(higher speeds) bring upon objects, the difference of change between two object will be the same in all the inertial frames of references. lets say the mass of object A is MA, and object B is MB and lets say M is a constant within a frame, MA-MB or MB-MA will be the same in all the systems. MA may change as per the M of a frame of reference. but A and B the( the invariability of the things) do not change. you subject both A and B to the same high speeds, still the difference is the same. actually inertial mass or mass should be referring to the same attribute of things. | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9685 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
exactly.....my point is we have two unknowns here.....we cannot use gravitational mass in F = ma if we follow the defintion for inertial mass...i don't think relativity needs any different background......it also uses newton's second law with mass as a variable | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9684 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
when you do this you r basically measuring static gravitational mass.....you don't need F equal to ma for this.....even before newton people measured this mass.......but the mass in F = ma is different it could change for the same object like in relativity......both mass and force are defined in the same equation and dependent on each other.... | ||
| Oohlala Side Hero Username: Oohlala Post Number: 2727 Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 173.36.196.8 Rating: N/A |
Thrust basically explains Newtons second & third law, just like force it is a vector qty too | ||
| Oohlala Side Hero Username: Oohlala Post Number: 2726 Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 173.36.196.10 Rating: N/A |
even if you cant measure mass/force directly, inertial mass is same anywhere, gravitational mass obviously will be different | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7192 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
bro, force direct ga measure cheyalemu, kaani oka saari measure chesaaka (with known mass)thelusthundhi kadha entha force undhi ani. now cant we use this force to find mass of other objects? im not seeing the point you are raising. how are they linked ani? you are not trying to find based on two unknowns?
bro, you are going way too ahead for the scope of this discussion. einstien concept discuss cheyaali ante you should have not started with force = mass * acceleration. einstien concepts discuss cheyaali ante inka chaala background discuss cheyaali. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9683 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
you r saying mass is a property of matter......i ask how do u measure it....u say it can only be measured empirically using gravitation by using a standard mass.....but inertial mass is not a static property....it's dynamical property as defined....we have force we cannot measure directly and also mass which we cannot measure without knowing force....if force is just defined as matter times accelaration where matter can be independently ascertained then its perfectly fine......but it's not the case even with same matter mass can change as in relativity.....if einstien can change mass with velocity with same matter....why can't mass change with place and hence the force required change by definition for the same accelaration.....how could both force and mass be measured when both are dependent variables on each other and cannot independently measured | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 429 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 202.160.48.240 Rating: N/A |
nopes. take two sizes of stones. measure the weight of the bigger stone in terms of of the smaller one. you get a number. that number will not change in any gravitational field as long as it it isotropic. the number will be the same on moon. | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7190 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
bro, this is gross over simplification of both vedic and western sciences. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7189 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
either i lost track of train of thought, or you are asking the same question. there is no way to measure mass, other than empirically.
so?
you are implying matter has doubled? the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9680 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
coke......everything is floating in space or ether......so ether is basic....science doesn't know what constitues space | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9679 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
know that weight is different from mass.....but there is no other way to compare two masses
i could say inertial mass is doubled on the moon so the force required for similar accelaration also doubled.......what can stop me from saying so when both force & mass cannot be directly measured | ||
| Cocanada Legend Username: Cocanada Post Number: 37917 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 168.244.164.254 Rating: N/A |
siloan baa perpendicular gaa pade pressure ni thrust antaaru suppose nuvvu wickets paatutunaavu anuko bat etti perpendicular ga kodite..baalgaa digudhi suppose..konchem vonkara ga kodatannaavu anuko...correct ga digadu becuase the thrust reduced. The thrust is now cos theta of the force you are applying. http://i49.tinypic.com/20r8ra9.jpg | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9677 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
then i have to ask how that property of matter is defined and measured.....we again come back to the same question | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9676 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
bro......yes we r going in circles... when we say force on a body that means net force.....from the perspective of body it's single force with adirection....force can be conceptually resolved into several components but only net force matter & that's what any body recognizes...if it's is greater than zero by definition it should accelarate | ||
| Siloan Megastar Username: Siloan Post Number: 24138 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 132.174.20.41 Rating: N/A |
thanks...vigananni daachukovu nuvvu ..always | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7187 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
thrust is a force exerted by accelarating body on the rest of the system. that is if a system is exerting force on a body, the body exerts the same pressure on the sytem, but in opposite direction. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7186 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
why should we say they are the same. it is not same. they are different. inertial mass is just a property of matter.
mass and weight are different conceptually.
wieght has to change from place to place, by virtue of gravity. why should mass change, by virtue of its definition? the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Farmer Comedian Username: Farmer Post Number: 1389 Registered: 03-2012 Posted From: 95.154.230.254 Rating: N/A |
v=u+at s=ut+1/2atsquare baa cheppaanaa  | ||
| Siloan Megastar Username: Siloan Post Number: 24134 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 132.174.20.41 Rating: N/A |
mentalesh...nuvvanna cheppu what is thrust...cocam ba ignoring... enduko all of sudden e thed soodagaane aa padam yaadkochhindi...ninna | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7185 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
ofcourse, when i say scalar, im intending to say the quantitative value without the direction component. from the doors perspective, force is being exterted from both directions. like i said there should be movement with out opposing force. i think im going in circles. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9675 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
there is no scalar force......force is a vector.....by definition body should accelarate when it feels force | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9674 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
your body mass is meausred by weight.....for finding inertial mass we need a known value of force acting and the resulting accelaration...if we say inertial mass is same as matter then problem solved...we can calculate force....but inertial mass is not matter by definition...show me the definition of inertial mass where it says is same as matter...even the weight of matter changes from place to place...how can we be sure that mass hasn't changed? | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7184 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
net force is different from scalar force experienced by a particular object. Door meedha entha force undho calculate cheyataniki, you use the some of all force acting on the door. thats the value door is experiencing. but forces are vectors. ante oka direction lo force apply chesthe, the effect is in a certain direction. if the door is not moving, it means that the net force from opposite side of the force is equal and opposite. if enough force is applied, from all sides the door might break, what does that tell us? the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7183 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
Mass anedhi constant undali, because its a collection of matter antunaaru. but there is no easy way to quantitavely get this value for all objects. so we use different methods to calculate it based on how a mass behaves or effects a particular system. Inertial mass is just a way to calculate the mass of a body, otherwise unknown. ante ippudu naa body mass calculate cheyaali ante ela chestharu? but we know force can be calculated otherwise. ante it can be calculated based of the known mass of an object. now we use this calculated force to calculate the mass of unknown object, and since we are using force to calculate mass, it is called inertial mass. if you use gravity to calculate mass of an object, it is called gravitational mass. now, these values are to understand the mass of the body. quantitatively gravitational mass values are equal to inertial mass values. they represent the same mass. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Thikka_sankara Junior Artist Username: Thikka_sankara Post Number: 622 Registered: 02-2012 Posted From: 122.164.169.114 Rating: N/A |
neeku ardham ayyi antunnavo leka antunnavo naaku ardham kaavatle.... body meeda force apply chestunna adi accelerate avvaka pothe.... danini edo aaputhunnatte kadaa.... if the one that is trying to stop is a force the one trying to move it is also a force.... assal nee query ento oka saari malli post cheyy... I think you are lost in arguement Naakonchem thikkundi.... daaaniko lekkundi | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9672 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
the main thing here is not the efforts on either side...it's wether a foce acts on the door or not no matter how much stress or strain the pushers physically feel....door doen't know about both their efforts unless anet force acts on it | ||
| Thikka_sankara Junior Artist Username: Thikka_sankara Post Number: 621 Registered: 02-2012 Posted From: 122.164.169.114 Rating: N/A |
bhayya cross check.... relativity is applicable for all velocities... but the char of increasing mass is applicable only at vel of light..... I'm 100 ki 100 sure on this Naakonchem thikkundi.... daaaniko lekkundi | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9671 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
weight lifter anukovchu nenu chala effort pedutunnanu ani.....but body accelarate kakapothe daani meedha emi force lenattu by definition | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9670 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
well inertial mass is defined as a measure of resistance to change...it's not an independent measurement......how can one neglect mass change in relatively when einestien is considered genius in physics...for the same amount of matter in relativity we need more force because of increase in mass....btw relativity is applicable for all velocities not just at velocity of light | ||
| Thikka_sankara Junior Artist Username: Thikka_sankara Post Number: 617 Registered: 02-2012 Posted From: 122.164.39.125 Rating: N/A |
kikiki,.... ehter ki link kaavaalaa..... Naakonchem thikkundi.... daaaniko lekkundi | ||
| Cocanada Legend Username: Cocanada Post Number: 37915 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 168.244.164.254 Rating: N/A |
explain or link please http://i49.tinypic.com/20r8ra9.jpg | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7182 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
we will not know, unless we are the source of force.
agree, if there is no friction involved.
lets consider this. there is unbolted door(which can open both ways). now il be outside the room, and you are inside the room. now if i push the door, it opens, if there is no obstruction. but now if you dont want me to get in, you start pushing it from the other side. now as long as our forces are equal, the door will be in its position. ippudu naa force ekkuva ayithe door opens into the room, and nee force ekkuva ayithe it opens outside. how do you explain this without the concept of opposing forces? the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Thikka_sankara Junior Artist Username: Thikka_sankara Post Number: 615 Registered: 02-2012 Posted From: 122.164.39.125 Rating: N/A |
what einstein said is... applicable only when a body with mass is travelling at the speed of light..... adi tappu ani prove cheyyalante.... first let a body with mass travel with speed of light.... and then weigh it when it is in transit and then prove that its mass didn;t increase kikiki Naakonchem thikkundi.... daaaniko lekkundi | ||
| Thikka_sankara Junior Artist Username: Thikka_sankara Post Number: 614 Registered: 02-2012 Posted From: 122.164.39.125 Rating: N/A |
ardham ayyindi bhayya... when a body is lying on ground (in this case, weights to be lifted by lifter).... daanini lepe force apply chesthunnadu enduku.... opposite down ward gravity leka pothe.... gravity ledante..... ooffu ooffu ani oodu kovachu kadaa..... on second thoughts.... gravity leka pothe.... entha force pettinaaa lepadam ane concept undademo.... Naakonchem thikkundi.... daaaniko lekkundi | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7181 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
hmm i dont think there is a definition of mass based on force. there are equations which let you calculate mass, but it does not mean, thats a definition. F = m a ante, m = F/a ane kadha? it does not define mass, but it only calculates mass, if we know the rest of parameters. nest mass changing with velocity ane concepts inka saana back group cover cheyaali anukunta. Einstein wasnt implying my mass is different when im walkin at 3 mph and running at 5 mph. basically, dealing with sub atomic particles is different than regular objects. Mass ane concept ni akkada revisit cheyaali. it can be said that we are discussing is a one case of theory of relativity. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Whyme Junior Artist Username: Whyme Post Number: 920 Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 66.20.189.207 Rating: N/A |
mundare esa grigqwert kottadu.. kani enduko malli eyyali anfinchindi mass ante GabbarSingh.. accelaration ante fans ki vachina voopu so force = mass * acceleration annamata meeru ettago kummutharu nenu helmet, abdominal guard fettukoni ostha malli | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9669 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
u didn't get me..,,,i am talking about the scenario of zero net force on a body | ||
| Thikka_sankara Junior Artist Username: Thikka_sankara Post Number: 613 Registered: 02-2012 Posted From: 122.164.39.125 Rating: N/A |
tell this to the weight lifter lifting in 100kg category.... areey tooch.... lepadaaaniki force apply cheyyakrle... just bhraanthi.... ooffu ooffu ani oodeseyochhu Naakonchem thikkundi.... daaaniko lekkundi | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9668 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
everything is aprojection of ether which einstien dismissed as non-existant | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9666 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
how do you know force is acting without seeing its effects?.....force acting on body means you have to see accelaration.....equal & opposite force acting is just our conception | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9665 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
right..then we don't need to have a force based definition of mass..it's just matter and it's constant....cannot be changed...and based on quantity of matter we define force...matter should be same as mass...but mass is different from matter it can increase, decrease with velocity if relativity is factually true | ||
| Thikka_sankara Junior Artist Username: Thikka_sankara Post Number: 610 Registered: 02-2012 Posted From: 122.164.39.125 Rating: N/A |
kikiki..... this is correst bhayya.... all we know is nothing ani LHC scientist okadu cheppaadu... when they were observing particles travelling faster than light ..... if this is true... this proves that... we dont know anything ani kikiki Naakonchem thikkundi.... daaaniko lekkundi | ||
| Siloan Megastar Username: Siloan Post Number: 24109 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 132.174.20.41 Rating: N/A |
ba i ask abt thrust? | ||
| Cocanada Legend Username: Cocanada Post Number: 37912 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 168.244.164.254 Rating: N/A |
asalu naa doubt entante .. since fundamental particles are mostly empty, what is giving an object properties like mass,color,smell,taste etc? what i mean is..molecules are empty..except for tiny atoms. inside an atom, electron is not matter. even inside the nucleus, its mostly empty except for tiny protons and neutrons. sometimes i feel, we haven't peeped inside the tiniest particles we know but everything is empty. http://i49.tinypic.com/20r8ra9.jpg | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7179 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
annai, i agree force is not something observable, and hence the confusion may be. now about using independent variables, the standards are based on independent variables, now once we have standard established, what is the need for these independent variables? once we agree that the mass of certain object. why cant it be used as an independent variable? same goes with force, why cant we rely on these standard, as long as it is not conflicting with basic definitions, assumptions? the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9664 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
btw...according to einestien theory mass increases with velocity....so, does that mean number of elementary particles increase with velocity?......i think einestien messed up lot of things | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7178 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 208.85.128.5 Rating: N/A |
ok, we will get to this a little later annai.
force is also empirical, when i say empirical, im meaning to say it is not observable. force is a measured entity. we have standard for Mass. which is the amount of matter in 1 cubic centimeter of water, at melting point of water. this mass of water does not move unless there is some external entity trying to move it(assuming it is at rest, even if its relative). which we call force. Now force can only be measured based on the impact it creates. so a standard measurement for force has been created. i.e it is the amount of force required to move a 1 Kg mass, per meter per second. now the same force will be needed to have a same impact on any other body of same mass. lets take a cube of water. now you can measure, its movement from point a to point b, when a certain external pressure is applied, and now you can break the time into measureable intervals and observe that the rate of movement is constant. here theoretical physics relies on imagination because, a perfect setup to replicate this is very hard to create. without understand the concept of friction, we can never arrive at proper conclusions based on experiments. once you have a standard measurement of force, the rest of measurements are either multiples or fractions of the standard. looking at your question again, you are enquiring about measuring force. how do you measure it? you use some kind of instrument to do it. just like a tape, is caliberated, the measuring device is also caliberated based on standard. not sure if that is what you are looking for.
yes, net force is zero. but it does not mean there is no force. it only means that there is a negating force acting on the body. if the actual force on the object is to be calculated, the scalar quantities, it is basically the sum of all forces. but on the system as a whole, the net is zero. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Thikka_sankara Junior Artist Username: Thikka_sankara Post Number: 598 Registered: 02-2012 Posted From: 122.164.39.125 Rating: N/A |
bhayya inertia itself is a kind of force... which restricts a body to rest or to a uniform motion... to alter which a force needs to be applied..... sooo alaanti inertial mass ni define chesetappudu force use lekundaa elaa define chestaaru..... think about it Naakonchem thikkundi.... daaaniko lekkundi | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9662 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
Though i am not a favorite of Einestien theories.....i agree we cannot prove gravitational attraction......but we can prove attraction between magnets because only magnets attract each other | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9661 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
we can observe length, time....but how can we observe force, we can only see it's effects and try to quantify it with indirect methods.....but these indirect methods should only involve independent variables not dependent or defined on the basis of what they are attempting to quantify....but inertial mass is defined as F/a http://accessscience.com/studycenter.aspx?main=17&questionID =5818 | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9660 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
Thanks for the detailed post......but the issue here is definition of mass....it's not the same as matter....see according to nuclear fission reaction reactants & products have same number of elementary particles but products have less mass compared to reactants...so inertial mass is not same as matter...so when we measure with a secondary measurement using force wether gravitational or spring oscilations as used in inertial balance.....what is the guarantee that mass measurement is same in all scenarios....even with springs you need aknown mass to find spring costant
How do we measure force objectively as per definition without applying it on some mass?....force as defined in physics seems to me a vague mathematical entity....the only way to quantify force is newton's second law....if someone is pushing something really hard and it's not accelarating then there is no net force there | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7177 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 68.119.68.210 Rating: N/A |
vaammo.. this is raw boothu. 10,000,000th part of distance from earths equator to northpole. not sun. .. whisky effect anukunta the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7176 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 68.119.68.210 Rating: N/A |
density is a product of mass kadha. not all one cube of objects have the same mass. i.e 1 cubic centi meter of water at the temperature of melting ice, consists the standard number particles of matter. this is considered as the smaller stick used to measure the rest of the sticks. for measuring smaller objects, the standard has been atomic mass unit, which is the mass of single atom of C - 12. which is equivalent to 12 u. where u is a some fraction of 1 gram.
i think there is a process to do that. ElectroDisposition or something, however works for simpler matters. things get murky even with this process, at it involves negative mass the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Nisarga Junior Artist Username: Nisarga Post Number: 424 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 202.160.48.240 Rating: N/A |
1 gram is again weight here i think,not mass. but for all practical purposes it would be good enough. if mass is quantity of matter,to measure the mass directly, i think it, it would entail a kind of process something like counting the total number of fundamental particles(if such things exist independently) an object contains. spatial measurements(length/width) are abstract in the sense that they do not depend on what is being measured. dimensions are properties of physical objects.we can take a small stick and measure the length of a big stick in terms of small stick. we cannot take a cube of mass and measure other object with that because the density of the particles different objects contain would be different. I think if we can measure mass directly or without using any other secondary measurements, then there is no chicken and egg problem here. however, we would not need to know absolute values of anything as long as we can do relative measurements consistently across frames of references. | ||
| Nagfanscom Junior Artist Username: Nagfanscom Post Number: 747 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 14.140.149.65 Rating: N/A |
Newton's First law. Tell me one thing: Can we create force in a object less space. Can we create Force in Vaccum? Force can be measured only when We exert some pressure on a unit area OR Pressure = Force / Area We are able to change it's current state Force = Mass of the object x Area -3Mar | ||
| Oohlala Side Hero Username: Oohlala Post Number: 2715 Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 173.36.196.6 Rating: N/A |
agree.....people have agreed on standard measures (mass/length/time) while defining other concepts | ||
| Mental_sachinodu Side Hero Username: Mental_sachinodu Post Number: 7175 Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 68.119.68.210 Rating: |
bro idhi eppudoo discuss sesinattu guruthu.. mass is empirical. raka rakaala mass lu unnaayi.. but newton second law gurinsi discuss sesthunnav kabatti, assuming we are talking about inertial and possibly gravitation mass concepts. simplistic ga alosinchaale ante, every body consists of matter. quantitatively speaking, the amount of matter in object is mass, and the amount of space it occupies is volume. hippud, matter exists, but its measurable properties are very relative to the environment. if we are to measure the absoulute amount of matter in an object, that is same across all possible frames of reference (which is impractical, as we will not encounter such a frame in this universe), it is seen as a characteristic of momentum of the object, which is constant across frames. suppose, nenu unna, naa lo matter undhi, or im a collection of matter. we know that it should not differ, whether im in usa, india, under the pacific on the moon, or in space. now to move me from point a to point b, in a certain time t, it takes a certain amount of force. which is a measurable quantity. the difference of how speed the object has moved in terms of time speed and time is the physical force. ikkada chicken egg problem ledhu nijanga, as we can measure force for a known body,and apply it objects of similar masses. now as any other concept in physics there are standards of measurement. kinda posts lo explain sesinattu. how do we measure time. how do we measure mass. how do we meaure length. all these are standards based on observations. 1 unit of time - now taking only physical definitions, it was calculated based on sun, earth and moon as the key elements, and their observable movements. mana hindu units prakaram, a day is divided into similar units. vipala, pala and ghatika. alaage western definitions kooda. i think the current standard is based on the radiations of ceasium 133. 1 unit of length - dheeniki unna ani units dheniki levu anukunta. and we all know why. it is probably the easiest to measure. but the standard meter is defined as 10,000,00th part of the distance from earth's equator to sun. purely based on observations. 1 unit of mass - now this standard is based on the previous definition of length. the standard is as an assumption that one cubic centimenter of water has 1 gram of mass. irrespective of type of object, a body with a mass equivalent of 1 cubic centimeter requires the same amount of force to move it with certain acceleration. that is 1 cubic centimeter of water weighs the same as as an object of same mass. science observation ninchi formulations ki vellindhi, not the other way round. now one obesevation is earth pulls objects, a heavy body pulls objects, can we really concretely prove it. Einstein says its not that a body has the characteristic to pull, but it is the space bend it creates due to its mass,that creates the pull. all are observations. the world of appearances may or may not be real, or both may and may not be real - or may be indescribable; or may be real and indescribable, or unreal and indescribable; or in the end may be read and unreal and indescribable - its all Syadvada | ||
| Giriqwert Junior Artist Username: Giriqwert Post Number: 370 Registered: 09-2011 Posted From: 122.164.243.126 Rating: N/A |
 na intentions straight ee rao garu.. | ||
| Jatayu Junior Artist Username: Jatayu Post Number: 409 Registered: 04-2012 Posted From: 72.163.217.102 Rating: N/A |
annai.. manandariki artham ayye basha lo seppali ante.. "force = mass * acc" kada.. it is nothing but.. mana hero movies release ayyinappudu manam daniki vella daniki attraction (force) = "abhimanam (mass) * reviews (acc)" just simple annai.. manaki aa hero ante entha abhimanam undi.. reviews ela unnai.. rendu ekkuva ga unte.. manam tondaraga veltam (force is high).. ee renditillo edi takkuva unna.. vella daniki alochistam (force is low).. ki ki ki... | ||
| Rowdy Hero Username: Rowdy Post Number: 17636 Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 65.128.242.210 Rating: |
Sena savasam!  | ||
| Simba Side Hero Username: Simba Post Number: 5649 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 24.188.108.251 Rating: N/A |
chass... edava mind... entha vaddanna, prathi line lo boothu vethukuthundi. No... I should nnnot.. | ||
| Analog Comedian Username: Analog Post Number: 1534 Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 76.185.166.13 Rating: N/A |
 ee range lo gurthu unnayi ante great!!NenoDi neeve gelichi... nee gelupu naadani thalachi... raagaalu ranjilu roje raaji rammanTi | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9659 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
inertial mass is a measure of resistance to change...........how can we say similar weighed balls on earth need same amount of force on earth & moon to move them with same accelaration | ||
| Rowdy Hero Username: Rowdy Post Number: 17629 Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 144.15.255.227 Rating: N/A |
Sena ekkada ee thread lo ... | ||
| Oohlala Side Hero Username: Oohlala Post Number: 2705 Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 173.36.196.7 Rating: N/A |
courtesy: google Measure inertial mass. * Inertial mass is a dynamic measuring method, on that can only be accomplished while the object being measured is in motion. The inertia of the object is used to quantify the amount of matter. * An inertial balance is used to measure inertial mass. * Secure the inertial balance to a table. * Calibrate the inertial balance by putting the container in motion counting the number of vibrations in a specified time period, for example 30 seconds. * Place an item of known mass in the container and repeat the experiment. * Continue using several items of known mass to finish calibrating the scale. * Repeat the experiment with an item of unknown mass. * Graph all results to find the mass of the final object. | ||
| Rowdy Hero Username: Rowdy Post Number: 17628 Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 144.15.255.227 Rating: N/A |
 nuvvu nee tokkalo question ... nenu tega gokkunna edo intelligent question emo anukuni | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9658 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
both r one and the same....no difference a = d(v)/d(t) | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9657 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
you can only say 1N when you accelarate 1kg mass by 1m/s2.....if mass is fundamenatal unit then you should be able to directly measure it without using the concept of force which itself needs mass for calculation......how do you calculate momentum without mass? | ||
| Bushu Side Hero Username: Bushu Post Number: 5231 Registered: 04-2009 Posted From: 4.26.17.58 Rating: N/A |
so I tell you force applied by some action is 1N - how would you validate that? mass is a fundamental dimension along with length and time. In the absence of easier measuring means, it has become a derivative calculation while length and time are relative entities easier to measure. mass by itself is of no use. what matters is momentum; time derivative of momentum is force. F = m*a type kaadhu F = m * d(v)/d(t) laaga choodali. m(v-u) is the change in momentum which is a more fundamental concept. balupu s/o gelupu | ||
| Gatti_gunde Side Hero Username: Gatti_gunde Post Number: 8729 Registered: 02-2010 Posted From: 173.174.61.237 Rating: N/A |
 MEE abimaananni nenu gundello dhachukunta kani thala ki ekkanivanu - Pawan Kalyan | ||
| Ruj Side Hero Username: Ruj Post Number: 5439 Registered: 03-2007 Posted From: 166.147.98.82 Rating: N/A |
mass ante quantity Save telugu people, culture and hinduism from Jagan.. | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9656 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
to calculate force | ||
| Bushu Side Hero Username: Bushu Post Number: 5229 Registered: 04-2009 Posted From: 4.26.17.58 Rating: N/A |
why do you need to measure mass of any object? balupu s/o gelupu | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9655 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
yes.....mass as used in force formmulae, newton's second law | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9653 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
Force is not a fundamental unit in physics.....it's a secodary unit defined as mass time accelaration.....if there is no accelaration then no force acting on that body.....distance is fundamental unit....they say mass is also a fundamental unit like length....true if we think in terms of weight measurement....but how can we be sure that it has same inertial mass on moon?....is there any direct measurement of mass without making use the concept of force? | ||
| Farmer Comedian Username: Farmer Post Number: 1344 Registered: 03-2012 Posted From: 95.154.230.254 Rating: |
m = mass elements a = actor f = share f = ma baa cheppaanaa | ||
| Giriqwert Junior Artist Username: Giriqwert Post Number: 368 Registered: 09-2011 Posted From: 122.164.243.126 Rating: N/A |
yes i too remember osmeone saying that.. | ||
| Oohlala Side Hero Username: Oohlala Post Number: 2704 Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 173.36.196.7 Rating: N/A |
meeru IIT, MIT(?), CIO ani annaru kada | ||
| Siloan Megastar Username: Siloan Post Number: 24100 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 132.174.20.41 Rating: N/A |
not from* | ||
| Siloan Megastar Username: Siloan Post Number: 24099 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 132.174.20.41 Rating: N/A |
not for iit*..dont believe in any pukars | ||
| Giriqwert Junior Artist Username: Giriqwert Post Number: 367 Registered: 09-2011 Posted From: 122.164.243.126 Rating: N/A |
meeru iitkgp aa? aithe ye batch? | ||
| Oohlala Side Hero Username: Oohlala Post Number: 2702 Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 173.36.196.7 Rating: N/A |
are you referring to inertial mass? | ||
| Siloan Megastar Username: Siloan Post Number: 24097 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 132.174.20.41 Rating: N/A |
thrust | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9652 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
This balance requires known masses........how did they measure those masses let me state my uestion again.........Force is a secondary unit dependent on mass......then again inertial mass is also a definition dependent on Force....i see chicken & egg issue here | ||
| Giriqwert Junior Artist Username: Giriqwert Post Number: 366 Registered: 09-2011 Posted From: 122.164.243.126 Rating: N/A |
wrong..all bodies on earth are being pulled towards center with an acceleration 'g'..the normal reaction force from the contact balances it..nela meeda pettina suitcase meeda force lekapothe why do we put effort to lift it? weight is always thr..its just that the normal reaction force balances it from movement.. | ||
| Cocanada Legend Username: Cocanada Post Number: 37902 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 168.244.164.254 Rating: N/A |
there is force on it nuvvu sponge meeda pettu..kindaki eltundi wood meeda pettu..elladu why? wood is paplying force. there is strain on wood http://i49.tinypic.com/20r8ra9.jpg | ||
| Giriqwert Junior Artist Username: Giriqwert Post Number: 365 Registered: 09-2011 Posted From: 122.164.243.126 Rating: N/A |
Bhayya 1cm ante anthe ani neeku ela telusu antha distance ni manam one cm anukunnam..so alane 1N force define chesaru certain amount of force ki..danni g tho divide chesina danni 1kg anukuntunnam anthe.. adi use chesi spring balance tho 1N, 2N..5N etc forces apply chesi displacement in spring each time ela vary ayindo choosi spring constant kanukkuntarnu..so F = kx = mg in this case.. so ye body mass kavalo spring bal ki tagilinchi displacement 'x' ni batti weight reading(W) istundi now u will get mass thru = W/g | ||
| Chillarodu Comedian Username: Chillarodu Post Number: 1788 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.64.8.185 Rating: N/A |
No, there is a difference in regular weighing machine and mass balance. You need to use triple-beam balance to measure mass. No matter where(earth or moon) you measure mass using this balance it always show the same http://www.edinformatics.com/math_science/mass.htm A diamond with a flaw is better than a common stone that is perfect. | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9651 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
if a body is not accelaration then there is no force on it....adhi takkeda lo vunna aksham lo vunna | ||
| Siloan Megastar Username: Siloan Post Number: 24096 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 205.160.169.2 Rating: N/A |
thrust ante enti cocam ba | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9650 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
o.k let me ask this.....by above procedure m is not a direct measurement....it's a measurement thru gravitational force......how do you measure gravitational force?......you have to use gravitation formulae that require gravitational mass....again you need mass | ||
| Giriqwert Junior Artist Username: Giriqwert Post Number: 364 Registered: 09-2011 Posted From: 122.164.243.126 Rating: N/A |
| ||
| Whyme Junior Artist Username: Whyme Post Number: 909 Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 66.20.189.207 Rating: N/A |
mass ante GabbarSingh.. accelaration ante fans ki vachina voopu ee thread lo ee post enti be ante - swarry, I rest my case | ||
| Cocanada Legend Username: Cocanada Post Number: 37901 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 168.244.164.254 Rating: N/A |
ejjactly it is accelerating but it is being stopped by the weighing macine http://i49.tinypic.com/20r8ra9.jpg | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9649 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
Force is not a fundamental unit in physics......it's a defined unit....a secondary measurement.......let's say a body accelarating with a in gravitational field then according to the definition force is inertial mass times a.....then they use gravitational force formulae for weight and equate both.....how do they know m in gravitational formulae is same as m in inertial mass in force definition? | ||
| Giriqwert Junior Artist Username: Giriqwert Post Number: 362 Registered: 09-2011 Posted From: 122.164.243.126 Rating: N/A |
it is not accelerating cos nuv danni takkeda lo pettesav :P .. any freely left body will fall to the ground because it is attracted towards earth with force = their weight..weight changes but mass is universally constant.. moon lo weight diff untadhi but when u divide it by moon's g it gives you the same 'm' | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9648 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
when you measure weight it's not accelarating....even if you know the weight aeffect by secondary measurements....those measurements can be different at different places....example moon | ||
| Giriqwert Junior Artist Username: Giriqwert Post Number: 361 Registered: 09-2011 Posted From: 122.164.243.126 Rating: N/A |
K pagala interesting ga undevi problems appudu..ippudu copy paste lu thokka thotakura  | ||
| Simba Side Hero Username: Simba Post Number: 5646 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 206.210.17.33 Rating: N/A |
Denser objects have closely packed atoms than lighter objects, hence they are heavier. For a given object, mass is always constant but weight varies based on the environment. For ex: An object weighs lighter on Moon than Earth because of change in g value. | ||
| Cocanada Legend Username: Cocanada Post Number: 37900 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 168.244.164.254 Rating: N/A |
 english force is physical effort kaadaa? force is different from "work done" which is same as energy. force is the rate at which you can move things. Regarding your question on mass, i am beginning to think mass cannot be absolute. denser objects have more mass than the less denser ones. Can somebody explain me this some elements are heavier. does it mean their atoms are heavier or the density of atoms is more?? http://i49.tinypic.com/20r8ra9.jpg | ||
| Simba Side Hero Username: Simba Post Number: 5644 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 206.210.27.33 Rating: N/A |
it all started with "instrumentation". Some famous person, took certain amount of some material and applied some pressure to pull it up off the ground. That pressure is measured as 1 unit of Newton. While measuring every other object, you get the relative Newton value and come up with a "scale". A unit of anything is fictitious value that someone came up with and everybody agreed. | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9647 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
how do you know you need more force......force is not physical effort...it's mass times accelaration....... | ||
| Giriqwert Junior Artist Username: Giriqwert Post Number: 360 Registered: 09-2011 Posted From: 122.164.243.126 Rating: N/A |
aa mass ni vere calculations lo use cheskovachu since you already know that by weighing.. | ||
| Giriqwert Junior Artist Username: Giriqwert Post Number: 359 Registered: 09-2011 Posted From: 122.164.243.126 Rating: N/A |
when you weigh an object in a spring balance..you are measuring weight (force with which the object is pulled towards the center of the earth) so aa reading gives u mg. Divide it by 'g' you will get ur mass.. | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9646 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
well again i have to ask....weight is nothing but force.....how can you know the value of it without first having mass measurement | ||
| Giriqwert Junior Artist Username: Giriqwert Post Number: 358 Registered: 09-2011 Posted From: 122.164.243.126 Rating: N/A |
ee proportional relation nundi F = k.m.dv/dt = k.m.a vastundi k is chosen conveniently as 1 when the force is measured in SI units.. | ||
| Cocanada Legend Username: Cocanada Post Number: 37898 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 168.244.164.254 Rating: |
force will change the state of an object say an object is at rest, if has to move, it has to change its velocity. you need more force to move things at a faster rate. And you need more force to move heavier objects. So, force can be defined as mass* acceleration anukuntuna Der gaa...ROM lo kurchuni navvukovadhu. edava navvu nuvvu ni http://i49.tinypic.com/20r8ra9.jpg | ||
| Simba Side Hero Username: Simba Post Number: 5637 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 206.210.17.33 Rating: N/A |
weight is the force where the acceleration is g (known value) | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9645 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
u get weight not mass by balance | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9644 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
how do you know the magnitude of force without knowing mass?.....isn't this chicken & egg question? | ||
| Chillarodu Comedian Username: Chillarodu Post Number: 1787 Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 129.64.8.185 Rating: N/A |
using balance A diamond with a flaw is better than a common stone that is perfect. | ||
| Simba Side Hero Username: Simba Post Number: 5636 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 206.210.17.33 Rating: |
Based on the Force required to move an object at certain acceleration, the object's mass is measured. m = F / a | ||
| Oohlala Side Hero Username: Oohlala Post Number: 2699 Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 173.36.196.7 Rating: N/A |
force is a push/pull that will cause an object with mass to accelerate. | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 9642 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 202.133.58.115 Rating: N/A |
why Force = mass x accelaration and how is mass measured? |
