What Does "Weight x Density" Equal?

[bonjour]

what does weight times density equal?

Simple thread I know, but I couldn't find a straightfoward answer online.

 

[berkeman]

what does weight times density equal?

Simple thread I know, but I couldn't find a straightfoward answer online.

Doesn't ring a bell. Where have you seen it used?

 

[bonjour]

Doesn't ring a bell. Where have you seen it used?

I haven't, but surely it must equal something?

 

[berkeman]

I haven't, but surely it must equal something?

Please don't call me Shirley.

And no, it doesn't have to be anything special or real. Just look at the units...

 

[bonjour]

Please don't call me Shirley.

And no, it doesn't have to be anything special or real. Just look at the units...

Ok, what is the difference between volume and mass?

Apologides for not starting a new thread, I'm sure you agree it would just be a waste of space.

 

[berkeman]

Ok, what is the difference between volume and mass?

Apologides for not starting a new thread, I'm sure you agree it would just be a waste of space.

Mass/Volume = Density. But surely you know that already...

Why these specific questions? Are you studying something that is bringing them up?

 

[bonjour]

Mass/Volume = Density. But surely you know that already...

Why these specific questions? Are you studying something that is bringing them up?

I know what I'm told.

What is the difference between mass and volume?

My knowledge on physics isn't extensive. Please forgive me. If you believe I am wasting your time, I apologise, it is DEFINATELY not my intention to do so, and I strongly apologise if I have offended you in any way. I am simply trying to make sense.

 

[berkeman]

I know what I'm told.

What is the difference between mass and volume?

My knowledge on physics isn't extensive. Please forgive me. If you believe I am wasting your time, I apologise, it is DEFINATELY not my intention to do so, and I strongly apologise if I have offended you in any way. I am simply trying to make sense.

No offense taken. I guess you can say that volume and mass are two properties of an object. The volume and mass of an object are related to each other via another property of the object, which is its density. I'm not sure that there's much more to it than that.

Are you familiar with the website www.wikipedia.org?[/url] It has useful pages on many introductory subjects. It's less reliable for more advanced subjects, but the intro subjects are generally treated pretty well. The wewbsite [url]www.HowStuffWorks.com[/URL] is also good for many subjects.

 

[dacruick]

Force x mass / Volume? Useless as far as I know and if force = mass x distace / time²

we get mass² x distance / (Volume x time²)

thats a fun one.

 

[bonjour]

No offense taken. I guess you can say that volume and mass are two properties of an object. The volume and mass of an object are related to each other via another property of the object, which is its density. I'm not sure that there's much more to it than that.

Are you familiar with the website www.wikipedia.org?[/url] It has useful pages on many introductory subjects. It's less reliable for more advanced subjects, but the intro subjects are generally treated pretty well. The wewbsite [url]www.HowStuffWorks.com[/URL] is also good for many subjects.[/QUOTE]

I cannot thank you enough for the time you are giving me. i am extremely grateful. I have been off and on wiki all evening. It states things but does not explain questions I have or destroy my confusion. to put it another way, I cannot delve further with wiki on specific issues that arise from my (mis)understanding.

The biggest apology here if you do get offended, but I am being honest and I believe you deserve honesty, rather than a patronisation.
It appears to me you haven't really described the differences between mass and volume.
you've described the similarity.
But what is the fundamental difference between volume and mass? What makes mass...mass and not volume?

 

[fluidistic]

But what is the fundamental difference between volume and mass? What makes mass...mass and not volume?

A volume is a delimited region in a 3 dimensional space. For example a box and the space in it.
The mass is a property of a particle/object, etc. So what makes mass is the existence of particles/bodies. ( I believe so!)

Still confused? I find both concept pretty easy to understand, even if I can't define them well. (Like time and energy).

 

[bonjour]

A volume is a delimited region in a 3 dimensional space. For example a box and the space in it.
The mass is a property of a particle/object, etc. So what makes mass is the existence of particles/bodies. ( I believe so!)

Still confused? I find both concept pretty easy to understand, even if I can't define them well. (Like time and energy).

Does everything hold mass?

 

[dacruick]

no. not everything has mass. All matter does though. You have energy, which has no mass. But volume is just as fluid explained, its a measurement of space. how much space does something hold? a certain volume. It is possible that the relationship you are having trouble with will be a little clearer if i relate mass and volume. Things cannot hold mass without having a volume. Density is just a ratio of mass to volume. When we say something is dense, that means it has a high mass per volume. It is the same as the way we describe speed as miles per hour.

 

[bonjour]

So is mass a metaphysical concept?

 

[DaveC426913]

So is mass a metaphysical concept?

No. Why would you think so?

Any type of matter has mass. Not everything is matter.

 

[bonjour]

Sorry I am so slow with myself. Forigve me for back treading.

no. not everything has mass. All matter does though.

What about dark energy?

 

[DaveC426913]

What about dark energy?

Well, we don't know what it is yet, but if it's energy, it won't have mass.

 

[bonjour]

Well, we don't know what it is yet, but if it's energy, it won't have mass.

Wouldn't that mean e=mc2 is wrong then?

 

[DaveC426913]

Wouldn't that mean e=mc2 is wrong then?

No.

Einstein's equation says that mass and energy are equivalent, not that they are the same thing.

If you took a mass M and converted it to energy, the amount of energy you would get is Mc^2.

 

[bonjour]

No.

Einstein's equation says that mass and energy are equivalent, not that they are the same thing.

If you took a mass M and converted it to energy, the amount of energy you would get is Mc^2.

I think I understand, energy does not consist of mass and the speed of light...right?

e2a:
Also this suggests to me, that anti matter, dark matter, negative matter are the same things. Is this the thought of the science community at present? Or do people consider them to be completely different things?

 

[DaveC426913]

I think I understand, energy does not consist of mass and the speed of light...right?

Right.

 

[fluidistic]

Also this suggests to me, that anti matter, dark matter, negative matter are the same things. Is this the thought of the science community at present? Or do people consider them to be completely different things?

I never heard of negative matter, but I know that anti matter and dark matter aren't considered the same thing. Why do you think so? As suggested before in the thread, check out wikipedia...

 

[DaveC426913]

Also this suggests to me, that anti matter, dark matter, negative matter are the same things. Is this the thought of the science community at present? Or do people consider them to be completely different things?

Antimatter is just like normal matter, except for the charges. If there's antimater out there, it'll be as visible as ordinary matter. No so with dark matter. We detect dark matter by its gravitational effect, but we cannot see it; it does not interact with light.

I don't know what negative matter is.

 

[bonjour]

No I understand, thank you all.
Dark matter is what I consider(ed) to be negative matter as it would be equivalent to having none/negative mass

 

[DaveC426913]

Dark matter is what I consider(ed) to be negative matter as it would be equivalent to having none/negative mass

OK, now you understand that darkmatter indeed has mass. That's its defining property. What we don't understand is why we can't see it.

 

[bonjour]

OK, now you understand that darkmatter indeed has mass. That's its defining property. What we don't understand is why we can't see it.

Well if its negative in mass, it's negative in matter. Obvious of course. This weirdly is reminiscent of my earlier post.

So is mass a metaphysical concept?

Except to be the absolute correct question, the question should be and that I ask is
"is negative/dark mass a metaphysical concept?"
I'm sure you're aware of the answer.

This concludes though we will NEVER be able to (e2a: directly) see dark matter, if we see dark matter, it's simply not dark matter that we're seeing. (e2a: It's a logical impossibility to see dark matter)

Haha, to look at dark matter you have to not look at it. Science has a sense of humour.

 

[berkeman]

Dark matter does not have negative mass. It has positive mass.

 

[bonjour]

Dark matter does not have negative mass. It has positive mass.

well it has dark mass. But I say negative mass as I feel it's more concisive.

 

[berkeman]

well it has dark mass. But I say negative mass as I feel it's more concisive.

No, it is confusing and plain wrong. Negative mass would imply a repulsive force, which dark matter does not appear to have. Dark Energy, on the other hand, does appear to be repulsive. At leazst for the past few billion years.

 

[Mihael@@/&]

I have a question about dark Energy/Matter. Was that made up just to somehow explain weirdness connected to existence of galaxies? I can't find any other reason. Maybe it is time to think about properties of space. "Simply put, the physical community must continue it’s motivation to speculate on how to fit gravity into relativity while continuing to build on the proven properties of quantum mechanics so that we might again restore "order" to the universe." :)

 

[Phrak]

If you took a mass M and converted it to energy, the amount of energy you would get is Mc^2.

Urm. E=mc^2 is not a conversion equation but an equivalence. If it where, it would be E+mc^2=0 though there are endless authors that do this...

 

[DaveC426913]

Urm. E=mc^2 is not a conversion equation but an equivalence. If it where, it would be E+mc^2=0 though there are endless authors that do this...

Can you elaborate?

 

[Phrak]

Can you elaborate?

Well, I'm not sure how to elaborate. In your first statement you say they are equivalent which is consistant with E=mc².

But I hear this statement about converting mass to energy often enough in various forms. This isn't consistant with E/m=c²=constant where m is the ponderable, inertial mass. So the energy and mass are there all along.

In an atomic reaction, the energy doesn't change to mass, but some of the binding energy that was there all along becomes kinetic.

Interesting factoids:
The exact statement "mass energy conversion" gets 401,000 google hits.
Searching strictly on site domains .edu obtains 24,000 hits.

There are a number from hits from Princeton, which is ironically apropos, abit most seem to be cosmologists.