What is the relationship between mass and weight?

AI Thread Summary
The relationship between mass and weight is defined by the equation w = m⋅g, where weight (w) is the force of gravity acting on a mass (m). While mass is an intrinsic property of an object, weight depends on both mass and the gravitational acceleration (g), which is approximately constant near Earth's surface. Although g can vary with location and height, it is often treated as constant for practical purposes. This proportionality means that as mass increases, weight also increases, making them interchangeable in many contexts. Understanding this relationship is crucial in scientific and technological applications.
harry_thawne
Messages
1
Reaction score
4
What does it mean that the relationship between mass and weight is constant and proportional?
I think I don't get it yet. The weight depends of mass, but at the same time depends of gravity, so if mass increase, the weight so does. But if we're on Earth we know that"g" has a value, therefore that "g" could be the constant in this equation that represents the relation: w=m⋅g, Is that the reason why the relationship between this two magnitudes is constant and proportional?
I hope I have explained myself well.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You may wish to read this.
 
harry_thawne said:
Summary:: What does it mean that the relationship between mass and weight is constant and proportional?

But if we're on Earth we know that"g" has a value, therefore that "g" could be the constant in this equation that represents the relation: w=m⋅g, Is that the reason why the relationship between this two magnitudes is constant and proportional?

Yes, insofar as ##g## is constant.

There are other ways of using the term weight, but what you describe is the way it's used in science and technology.
 
Weight is the force of gravity on a mass (typically, a mass that is not in freefall with respect to the source of the gravity). Because most human-related measurements and discussions occur near Earth's surface, we can take the proportionality between mass and weight to be g. g is not truly constant, it changes with location and height, but it's useful enough to treat it as constant for most things. If you're launching a rocket into orbit, then you have to be more nuanced.

This is also related to the units we use to describe mass and weight. When we talk about a pound we could mean a pound of mass (454 grams) or a pound of force (~4.4 Newtons), but the distinction doesn't matter as long as we stay near Earth's surface.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, bhobba and sysprog
Just to try and give a short answer. Mass is an intrinsic property of an object as expressed in the definition of force F=ma. Gravity accelerates objects with a constant acceleration regardless of mass. Since F=ma that means it experiences a force from gravity - sometimes called weight. Since acceleration is constant the force and hence weight is proportional to mass. Because of that they are in some contexts used interchangeably, but really are two different things.

Thanks
Bill
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top