• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Thought provoking question

Sitaram-
True, NULL is very different from ZERO. I'm a database programmer, among other things, and I certainly appreciate the difference between NULL and ZERO.
Now, as far as the dry ice, you're wrong about that. When an object changes state - as in sublimation - no mass whatsoever is lost in the process. That is a principal known as Conservation of Mass and was proved by Lavoirsier (sp?) shortly before the French Revolution. To get right to the point, if you captured the CO2 that had sublimated off the dry ice and weighed it, along with any remaining dry ice, the weight would be identical to the original dry ice weight. The only reason the CO2 gas floats in the air is because it is bouyant in air, but it has mass.
Now, as far as the Earth having weight with respect to the sun, that is correct. It also has (a different) weight with respect to every other object in the universe. Mass is different - that is an intrinsic property of the object and it is not relative to other objects, but WEIGHT is only meaningful as a measure of the attraction between 2 objects. When we speak about WEIGHT, our frame of reference is the Earth itself. Almost always is. So the Earth, with respect to itself as a frame of reference, weighs zero.
If you were in an elevator that was in free fall because let's say the cable broke (God forbid) you would be weightless with respect to the elevator cab but you would have your normal weight with respect to the Earth. True the Earth is in orbit about the Sun, and has weight with respect to the Sun, but has no weight with respect to itself. Since, as I said, weight is almost always - unless otherwise stated - in respect to the Earth, the Earth cannot have any weight with respect to itself. If you were able to measure the weight with a giant scale, and put it in space, and put the earth on it, it would register 0.
 
well, if the answer is zero, and you knew it couldn't weight anything because of its position in space and zero gravity, then there shouldn't be a question of how much it weighs, therefore the question doesn't exist. I think. I'm not real good at philosophical discussions. :D
 
I prefer to think of the solar system as being a bunch of colorful balls being juggled by an unseen pair of hands.
 
Libre said:
Sitaram-
True, NULL is very different from ZERO. I'm a database programmer, among other things, and I certainly appreciate the difference between NULL and ZERO.

Now, as far as the dry ice, you're wrong about that. When an object changes state - as in sublimation - no mass whatsoever is lost in the process. That is a principal known as Conservation of Mass and was proved by Lavoirsier (sp?) shortly before the French Revolution. To get right to the point, if you captured the CO2 that had sublimated off the dry ice and weighed it, along with any remaining dry ice, the weight would be identical to the original dry ice weight. The only reason the CO2 gas floats in the air is because it is buoyant in air, but it has mass.

Now, as far as the Earth having weight with respect to the sun, that is correct. It also has (a different) weight with respect to every other object in the universe. Mass is different - that is an intrinsic property of the object and it is not relative to other objects, but WEIGHT is only meaningful as a measure of the attraction between 2 objects. When we speak about WEIGHT, our frame of reference is the Earth itself. Almost always is. So the Earth, with respect to itself as a frame of reference, weighs zero.

If you were in an elevator that was in free fall because let's say the cable broke (God forbid) you would be weightless with respect to the elevator cab but you would have your normal weight with respect to the Earth. True the Earth is in orbit about the Sun, and has weight with respect to the Sun, but has no weight with respect to itself. Since, as I said, weight is almost always - unless otherwise stated - in respect to the Earth, the Earth cannot have any weight with respect to itself. If you were able to measure the weight with a giant scale, and put it in space, and put the earth on it, it would register 0.
Click to expand...


You have the better makings of a lawyer than a friend, perhaps, in part, because you are so passionately concerned with being right, rather than rightly concerned with being compassionate.

You cavil in your argument between the concept of weight and mass. Were some of the carbon dioxide molecules to escape earth's atmosphere, then, by your argument, their weight would be zero, even though their mass would be constant. In your next breath, you concede that the earth does have some weight with respect to the sun, which conflicts with your earlier statement that the earth weighs exactly zero. Nothing can be measured exactly. Anything measured through instrumentation, whether weight on a scale, or temperature on a thermometer, or volume or velocity, etc., can never be exact since all instruments are limited in accuracy to a plus or minus range of precision. So, when you said that the earth weighs exactly zero, then you are in error.


My example was about the weight on a scale of a block of dry ice, and you know perfectly well that as the dry ice sublimates, the scale will register less and less weight, until finally, when the block is gone, it will register zero.
You twist my words by changing the premise of the example from the weight of the block into the mass of all the molecules collected.


Many confuse argument, dispute and contention with discourse and dialectical inquiry. Socrates was concerned with being right for the sake of truth while the sophists, his opponents, were concerned with truth for the sake of being right and gaining attention.

If spelling is your concern, then, before you submit, paste your post into Microsoft Word, or some other word processor with a spell-checker, correct it and past it back into TBF.

If you Google on names like Lavoirsier and the search engine will respond :

Did you mean: Lavoisier
 
Whooa! Hold your horses. Restrain thine equines.
I'm not a good friend because I'm passionate about being right???
Let's put a few your your fallacious arguments to bed.

To start with, Miss Shelf has the right idea about this - it's merely a quandary, as the thread is titled "Thought Provoking Question". It's not a court case. It's not an ethics issue. Thought about in a certain context - the context I am suggesting - then the earth has zero weight. In other contexts, it does have weight. I believe I covered all that somewhere above.

You cavil in your argument between the concept of weight and mass.

I'm not cavilling(?) at all. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Weight is a force and mass is a quantity of matter. I don't see them as the same at all - that's the key to my "thought provoking question".

Nothing can be measured exactly. Anything measured through instrumentation, whether weight on a scale, or temperature on a thermometer, or volume or velocity, etc., can never be exact since all instruments are limited in accuracy to a plus or minus range of precision. So, when you said that the earth weighs exactly zero, then you are in error.

It's true that nothing can be measured exactly. I'm not measuring anything, I'm using logic to arrive at an answer.
The sum of all the forces acting on a body in static equillibrium is precisely zero. If I tried taking measurements I'd get some fluctuation because of measurement error - as you suggested. That error is noise, contaminating the true answer of zero.

My example was about the weight on a scale of a block of dry ice, and you know perfectly well that as the dry ice sublimates, the scale will register less and less weight, until finally, when the block is gone, it will register zero.
You twist my words by changing the premise of the example from the weight of the block into the mass of all the molecules collected.

The dry ice weighs exactly the same, whether in a solid phase or a gasseous phase. A super accurate scale, in a vaccuum (removing air from the experiment) would prove it. Of course if you let the molecules of CO2 escape, the specimen on the scale will weigh less - nothing remarkable about that. LavWAHsiYAY proved almost the exact same thing - but he used specimens of iron rusting away.

If spelling is your concern, then, before you submit, paste your post into Microsoft Word, or some other word processor with a spell-checker, correct it and past it back into TBF.

The fact that I don't spell check before posting reveals that I'm more concerned with getting my point across than a fanatical passion to being "RIGHT".

Hey - this was merely a "Thought Provoking Question". I don't claim to be RIGHT. I'm just musing. It's a lark. It's pure whimsey.

OK?
 
pontalba said:
Now that ^^^^is a thought provoking thoeory...IMHO.....:D
Click to expand...
Pontalba,
....except that, if the Earth doesn't weigh anything out there in the middle of space, then I think that guy with the muscles is just making it look hard. I could do the same thing. :eek:
Peder
 
Peder said:
Pontalba,
....except that, if the Earth doesn't weigh anything out there in the middle of space, then I think that guy with the muscles is just making it look hard. I could do the same thing. :eek:
Peder
Click to expand...

Isn't that what is called a "six pack", Peder? :)
 
Peder said:
Pontalba,
....except that, if the Earth doesn't weigh anything out there in the middle of space, then I think that guy with the muscles is just making it look hard. I could do the same thing. :eek:
Peder
Click to expand...
...details, details, details.............:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top