What are the properties of mass?

The properties of mass are two in number: Water at Earth's surface was
chosen as the standard density to which the density of all other
substances is compared, because water is at its maximum density of
62.42# per cubic foot at sea level.

The density of equal volumes of other substances are compared to that
of water, and the quotient is their density Relative to the Standard
density of water: Where this quotient is its Specific Gravity, or
Relative Mass: A volume of substance heavier than water has a Relative
Mass greater than water, and will sink in it. A volume of substance
lighter than water has a Relative Mass less than water. and will float
on it.

> The properties of mass are two in number: Water at Earth's surface was

You start off talking about "properties of mass are two in number", and then
you never tell what those two properties are. Thanks a lot buster!

"oðin" <oð[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
then

i dont think he knows himself

Jeremy Watts wrote:
surface was
of
that
Standard
Relative
substance
float
and
Ohh; sorry I forgot who I was talking to: The two properties of mass
are that it has volume and density.

Don1 wrote:
other
to
or
will
number",
buster!

Very interesting, since Density = Mass / Volume.
..
Double-A

"Don1" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1105616888.863575.142570@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

again don you have the entire group stunned by your insights into the
physical world. however do you do it?

>> > you never tell what those two properties are. Thanks a lot buster!

Oh. So now you say that you did not tell us what the alleged two properties
of mass are because you forgot whom you were talking to? If you remembered
who you were talking to (how could you forget that it was us?!?!), that
would somehow help you remember to define your mass properties thingy?
Yikes, I am starting to wonder to whom you are talking as well.

Here is my take on it: Mass has no properties, it is just a quantity that is
a property of matter. Volume is a property of space. But who really cares?
What does it matter what is properly a property of a socket in your pocket
with a propensity for density?

Double-A wrote:

Or as I prefer: Weight-density = weight per unit of volume.

When Newton was looking for a name for the bodies he used in his second
law, he came up with the name mass, and defined it as a body's 'bulk
and density conjointly.'

Most of us modern guys of seventy or so call this ratio of weight per
volume: Specific Gravity. Specific Gravity has the same numerical value
in English as in that new fangled SI system of weights and measures*,
and is also called "Relative Density"; because it's the density of
other substances in relation to the Standard Density of water.

* You know, the "new" decimal system where its inventors thought that
grams and kilograms made good weights; until after almost a hundred
years, when they finally realized that a _unit of weight_ was the force
that gave a mass of one kilogram an acceleration of 9.81 meters per
second per second. So they revised the unit of force down to 1 newton,
which is the force that gives a mass of one kilogram, an acceleration
of one meter per second, per second.

No matter, the SI system has other problems, that counting by tens
can't cure, and it won't last.

Don

Snip<
Aww it's nothing really;^) I just studied a hell of a lot more of the
history of science than most of you college graduates, because I didn't
have full fledged professors that I trusted enough to believe.

I built my own theory of the universe: That the countless discrete
ultimate particles, objects, bodies and masses of matter are
gravitating according to LeSage's kinetic hypothesis, and according to
Descartes vortex's.

The planets are evolving into suns; the suns are evolving into stars,
and will ultimately become nova or supernova when they become too large
to contain the angular momentum within them, and the gravitation cycle
will begin all over again.

The quacks, quarks and other bozo particles that we discover in atom
smashing are illusory for the most part, and hardly qualify as anything
permanent.

Believe me; with a grain of your _own_ salt: Don

> I built my own theory of the universe: That the countless discrete

Instead of saying "countless discrete ultimate particles, objects, bodies
and masses of matter" could you not just say "matter"? The more words you
use the less sense you make. Sheeeeeesh!


Glad you got the whole shabang theory worked out. Your invite from the The
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences should be in the mail soon.


How important is it for a particle to "qualify as anything permanent" (what
ever that means) in order for it to be significant to a theory in physics?