Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > General Physics

General Physics General Physics Help Forum

Like Tree15Likes
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Feb 27th 2018, 06:18 AM   #31
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
@oz: We don't invent terms just for the heck of it. If we are using the terms active and passive mass that means that there is a distinction between the two. See here.

Yes, Physics can get complicated. The extra nomenclature is there to make sure everyone is on the same page. Nothing more.

-Dan
Pmb likes this.
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline  
Old Feb 27th 2018, 06:57 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
@oz: We don't invent terms just for the heck of it. If we are using the terms active and passive mass that means that there is a distinction between the two. See here.

Yes, Physics can get complicated. The extra nomenclature is there to make sure everyone is on the same page. Nothing more.

-Dan
I've just looked at that link , topsquark .... there is just one sentence in the whole article dealing with this subject , ...here it is ...

" We might distinguish two kinds of gravitational mass, active and passive. The active gravitational mass is the source of the object's gravitational field, while the passive gravitational mass responds to it. ..."

LOL .... who comes up with this stuff????

Do I have to point out the flaw in that??? It's that never has an item exhibited "passive" mass without also exhibiting so called "active" mass also !!

It's a theoretical game , a hypothesis that cannot be proved by experiment , doesn't help our calculations or understanding in anyway way !!!

In another 15 years these terms too will fade into obscurity ...

Just because an idea is partially accepted by mainstream does not mean it's correct ... we must resist the instinct to blindly believe 'authority' ...

Question everything !!
oz93666 is offline  
Old Feb 27th 2018, 11:08 PM   #33
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
I've just looked at that link , topsquark .... there is just one sentence in the whole article dealing with this subject , ...here it is ...

" We might distinguish two kinds of gravitational mass, active and passive. The active gravitational mass is the source of the object's gravitational field, while the passive gravitational mass responds to it. ..."

LOL .... who comes up with this stuff????

Do I have to point out the flaw in that??? It's that never has an item exhibited "passive" mass without also exhibiting so called "active" mass also !!

It's a theoretical game , a hypothesis that cannot be proved by experiment , doesn't help our calculations or understanding in anyway way !!!

In another 15 years these terms too will fade into obscurity ...

Just because an idea is partially accepted by mainstream does not mean it's correct ... we must resist the instinct to blindly believe 'authority' ...

Question everything !!
Um, wow.

"Who comes up with this stuff?" Professionals that know what they are talking about.

Newton's 2nd: $\displaystyle \sum F = ma$

Newton's Law of Gravity: $\displaystyle F_G = \frac{Gm_1 m_2}{r^2}$

There is nothing that says that the masses in these two equations should be the same. There is no practical difference as far as experimentation and calculations are concerned but no real theory that says why. And the controversy has been going on since Newton introduced these equations some 400 years ago. It's not going to go away in 15 years.

As it happens I do question authorities. Any professional scientist would say the same. (At least they had better. Experiments drive Physics.) And personally, anyone who says that I accept the mainstream without question clearly needs to read my master's thesis. And there have been any number of examples of Physicists that have fruitfully "bucked the system" in the past.

Look, if you want to think that the scientific community is there to make things more complicated then fine. I simply do not understand why you are trying to say otherwise. What is the point of doing this? No one is making money from this and no one is getting any fame from it. Given that, what purpose would it serve?

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Last edited by topsquark; Feb 27th 2018 at 11:14 PM.
topsquark is offline  
Old Feb 28th 2018, 03:47 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
LOL .... who comes up with this stuff????
Further to TopSquark's post...

I found a paper where the authors describe a particular quantum mechanics experiment where the eigenstates of the problem depend on gravitational and inertial masses separately in different ways. Such an experiment could, therefore, be used to test further whether there are, indeed, any differences to gravitational and inertial mass.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.1988.pdf
topsquark likes this.
benit13 is offline  
Old Feb 28th 2018, 04:52 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 290
The two posts above have slipped back into discussing gravitational vs inertial mass ..

Which is completely different from active and passive gravitational mass

Although all four adjectives serve no purpose IMHO ...

Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
...Look, if you want to think that the scientific community is there to make things more complicated then fine. I simply do not understand why you are trying to say otherwise. What is the point of doing this? No one is making money from this and no one is getting any fame from it. Given that, what purpose would it serve?

-Dan
This is a long (conspiratorial) story , best suited for another thread ... If I find the time I hope start it .
oz93666 is offline  
Old Feb 28th 2018, 04:57 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
Further to TopSquark's post...

I found a paper where the authors describe a particular quantum mechanics experiment where the eigenstates of the problem depend on gravitational and inertial masses separately in different ways. Such an experiment could, therefore, be used to test further whether there are, indeed, any differences to gravitational and inertial mass.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.1988.pdf
Well that's great ... if they do the experiment and find there is a difference , then of course that would get the nobel prize and I would have no argument to using those two terms ...

But to date no one has detected a difference, so mass is mass is mass.
oz93666 is offline  
Old Feb 28th 2018, 05:03 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 911
oz93666 post#5
But let me play devils advocate to get a debate going ....
Was your failure to engage in proper debate something to do with this devil and was this devil Tasmanian?
topsquark likes this.

Last edited by studiot; Feb 28th 2018 at 05:48 AM.
studiot is online now  
Old Feb 28th 2018, 05:23 AM   #38
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,491
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
Further to TopSquark's post...

I found a paper where the authors describe a particular quantum mechanics experiment where the eigenstates of the problem depend on gravitational and inertial masses separately in different ways. Such an experiment could, therefore, be used to test further whether there are, indeed, any differences to gravitational and inertial mass.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.1988.pdf
I hope you're not trying to convince Oz of something? Its not possible.

As I said above active gravitational mass is defined through a tensor. Its not only possible but we know that active gravitational mass density can be negative. That's why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Are you familiar with a vacuum domain wall? The stresses inside the wall are negative which also yields a negative active gravitational mass. When a normal object having a positive passive gravitational mass is placed in the field its repelled by the wall.

Also as I indicated above, the active gravitational mass density of a body is different than the passive gravitational mass density. I already explained this but knew in advance that Oz wouldn't merely ignore it but probably laugh at it.

I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling when Oz makes all of my predictions about him come true.
topsquark likes this.

Last edited by Pmb; Feb 28th 2018 at 05:51 AM.
Pmb is online now  
Old Feb 28th 2018, 11:18 AM   #39
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
I hate to close the thread as it can help others if they need it but this is just getting out of hand. Let's change topics folks, to help out with other issues. I would prefer that y'all restart this conversation in a new thread.

-Dan

PS: I am going to close the thread after all and put a new one up under the same title.
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.

Last edited by topsquark; Feb 28th 2018 at 11:26 AM.
topsquark is offline  
Closed Thread

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > General Physics

Tags
common, misconceptions, physics



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Common Misconceptions in Physics" page Pmb Philosophy of Physics 18 Mar 14th 2018 05:51 AM
Van de Graaff device and common sense in physics . sorin Philosophy of Physics 7 Jul 2nd 2015 12:43 AM
Common MKS and CGS units topsquark Physics Resources 7 Jan 26th 2009 10:38 PM
Still More Common Equations - Optics and Modern Physics topsquark Physics Resources 0 Apr 24th 2008 10:53 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed