Defining mass resisting movement exerting energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definition of mass and its relationship to energy and motion. It begins with the assertion that mass can be understood as the resistance an object has to movement, implying that a higher mass requires more energy to move compared to a lower mass. The conversation then explores the implications of Einstein's equation E=mc², questioning whether energy can be defined by an object's ability to influence surrounding fields and resist changes in motion. A key point made is that while a moving car does require more energy to alter its position compared to a stationary one, the increase in mass due to speed is negligible and difficult to measure. The relationship between force, mass, and acceleration is highlighted through the equation F=ma, reinforcing that mass quantifies an object's resistance to acceleration. The discussion emphasizes the need for clarity in defining terms like energy and inertia to further understand these concepts.
Onon
I have read that mass can be measured by the degree of movement resistance to surrounding activity, so that an object high in mass will take more energy exertion to move than an object with a relatively lower mass measurement. Does anyone else have a different working definition for the word mass? Does the definition I have for mass not have any validity? If e=mc2 than does this mean that energy is measured by an objects potential to move surrounding fields of substance as well as an objects ability to resist a change in direction of movement once set in motion?

Does a car traveling at 60 mph have an easily measured higher degree of mass as a result of the fact that it takes much more energy exertion to alter the position of a car at this speed than a stationary one or is it so that only objects moving at great speeds have a noticeable degree of mass increase?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by Onon


Does a car traveling at 60 mph have an easily measured higher degree of mass as a result of the fact that it takes much more energy exertion to alter the position of a car at this speed than a stationary one or is it so that only objects moving at great speeds have a noticeable degree of mass increase?

Welcome to the Forums, Onon!

Your description of measuring mass as inertia is a fairly acurate one. However, the example of a car in motion is not exactly what physicists mean by this. The amount of force the brakes must exert to bring the vehicle to a stop from this speed is almost the same as the amount of force the drivetrain was required to apply in order to accelerate to that speed. And by "almost the same", I should point out that the difference between the two is mainly due to friction of the moving parts and wind resistance. The amount that the cars mass increases at 60 mph is very small, almost impossible to measure.
 
If e=mc2 than does this mean that energy is measured by an objects potential to move surrounding fields of substance as well as an objects ability to resist a change in direction of movement once set in motion?

My understanding of E=mc2 is...
mass x c2=Energy

But then, I don't quite understand your question; I'd like to put a prepostition here and there, but it'd be better if you explained it..[?]
 
How are you defining engery and inertia? What are your working definitions for these words?
 
Originally posted by Onon
I have read that mass can be measured by the degree of movement resistance to surrounding activity, so that an object high in mass will take more energy exertion to move than an object with a relatively lower mass measurement.

Of course, what do you think F = ma is?
Mass is a measure of its resistance to acceleration.

Creator
 
Thread 'Is there a white hole inside every black hole?'
This is what I am thinking. How much feasible is it? There is a white hole inside every black hole The white hole spits mass/energy out continuously The mass/energy that is spit out of a white hole drops back into it eventually. This is because of extreme space time curvature around the white hole Ironically this extreme space time curvature of the space around a white hole is caused by the huge mass/energy packed in the white hole Because of continuously spitting mass/energy which keeps...
Why do two separately floating objects in a liquid "attract" each other ?? What if gravity is an emergent property like surface tension ? What if they both are essentially trying to *minimize disorder at the interfaces — where non-aligned polarized particles are forced to mix with each other* What if gravity is an emergent property that is trying to optimize the entropy emerging out of spin aligned quantum bits
Back
Top