Re: What composes the mass of an electron? (mass, weight, heft, retro/super classical mechanics)

On 11/02/2024 10:58 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Freitag000001, 01.11.2024 um 22:13 schrieb kinak:

rhertz wrote:

A definition of mass, as found in Google:
>
"Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter or substance in an
object.
It's the total amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object."

>
--------------------------------
>
More or less as per my school books of seventy yeass ago.

>
The definition from above is wrong, because mass is NOT a measure for
the number of protons or similar.
>
Mass is a measure for resistance to acceleration.
>
The 'amount of matter' is not measured in kg but in mol.
>
TH
>

All are quite familiar with the notions of "mass" vis-a-vis "weight",
according to gravity and Newton's f(t) = m a(t), where of course
acceleration and force are functions of some universal parameter
t for time.
Then, there's also to be considered the rotational and mass-energy
equivalency, as with regards to "heft". This is available to
classical experiments, with regards to things like the gyroscopic
effect, and for example, the mechanics of spiraling balls and bullets.
These days, it's so that the "Magnus effect", is deemed as to why
balls and bullets fly straight and don't simply fall exactly as
according to gravitational acceleration of their mass, that
"heft" imbues them "resistance to acceleration".
It is known to mechanics that the aerodynamic explanation of
the Magnus effect is merely PARTIAL, and that there are extra
effects as according here to some "Magnus heft", which is as
simply according to the gyroscopic in effect.
So, where "inertia" and "momentum" are long ago conflated,
with regards to "rest" and "motion", in the classical mechanics,
as with regards to before and after Lagrange, then there is
a deconstructive account which makes for accounting for "heft",
as with regards to "resistance to acceleration".
I've been discussing this in my podcasts "Moment and Motion",
with regards to that there are fundamental aspects of motion
itself, both mathematically and physically, that for example
reflects on the Mertonian school and latitude of forms, with
regards to the vis-a-vis and vis-insita besides the vis-motrix,
that being a great argument between Newton and Leibniz,
as with regards to the simplest Galilean principles and
that they're too simple, that since after Lagrange is both
a partial account and Lagrange's flexible invariants,
then that physics writ large has explanations due about
mechanics, as for example Einstein conveys to intend to
portend, when he says the classical mechanics are incomplete.
https://www.youtube.com/@rossfinlayson