Mass

Does inertial mass change with the distance from the center of gravity?

Invers square of the distance???

Mass is not related to distance. Force between to objects is related to distance.

Does inertial mass change with the distance from the center of gravity?

I was thinking inertial mass (i.e., resistance to acceleration and gravitational mass (the pull of gravity)

Gravitational mass (as I understand it) decreases with the inverse square of the distance from the center of gravity)

I was wondering if inertial mass decreases with distance from the center of gravity.

I kind of think that it does not; and probably everyone knows this but me; ...I was just wondering. I do not even know why I was wondering.

Sometimes I wonder why I wonder.

Does inertial mass change with the distance from the center of gravity?

No. Mass is an amount of substance or material. The mass is a measure of the objects inertia. The location of an objects center of gravity has nothing to do with the object's mass.

I was thinking inertial mass (i.e., resistance to acceleration and gravitational mass (the pull of gravity)

My physics textbook does not define anything called intertial mass or gravitational mass. It mentions force of gravity between two objects, which is the product of the objects' masses divided by the square of the distance between the objects.



Gravitational mass (as I understand it) decreases with the inverse square of the distance from the center of gravity)

Like I said, I don't know of anything called gravitational mass. The force between objects is related to the inverse square of the distance between objects.

Sometimes I wonder why I wonder.

To wonder, likely a good thing. In seventh grade I read Wonder by Raquel J. Palacio. I'm not sure how that is possible, because it was published four years ago, and I read it six years ago.

Hmm .... could "Gravitational Mass / Inertia" be akin to weight?

Your "Weight" is dependent on your mass and the force of gravity

Was it about Time Travel?


I catch myself "remembering" scenes from movies that were never made (from books)

Does gravitational mass equal weight, which is mass times the force of gravity? That's fine with me. The weight of an object is related to gravity, but not to the object's center of gravity. I can see how that might be confusing.

Inertia normally is the same as mass, but sometimes people use it to mean momentum, which is mass times velocity. I have also heard people say inertia when they mean hysteresis, which is the tendency of current to continue after a voltage has been removed.

I have two theories. The information about the publication date is a typo, or my teacher had pre-publication copies of the book.

I remember that she said that she and the author were friends.

I should have said that weight is mass times the acceleration of gravity.

Yeah, those units can get goofy.
That's the trick - Follow the Units - it's what helped me survive the electricity section in physics class.

but on Earth, we say 1 kg of matter = 1 kg of Mass.
Then take that same 1 kg into space, and its still supposed to be 1 kg of inertial mass, as you put it.

So if its 1kg of mass in space, and we take it back to Earth where we have to multiply its mass by the force of gravity, it should be 1 x 9.8 = 9.8 kg ?

So 1kg on earth is NOT 1 kg mass in space? yet this is the claim.

Nonsense is (Mrs Johnson, please forgive me) always fun.

Likely, I would not make a good physicist. I would get lost in the units.

can none of you guys actually make any statements? only say that i'm speaking rubbish, but not able to explain yourselves?

If 1 kg of mass in space remains 1 kg when brought to earth, then 1 space kg = 1/9.8 earth kilograms.

Space kilograms are measured by inertial force required to move the object, same as the measure on earth. we resist the force of gravity, on earth and that resistance = 1 kg of force.

There is much of "settled" science that is circular in logic, I note well that not one of you egg heads, responded to my observation that the meter is defined by how far light will go in a set time, and that the speed of light is measured in those same units! This is a stupid and irrational way to define a standard, by measuring something by itself.

Not to mention that light now travels some rubbery distance, claimed to be approx 3x10^8 meters per second, when seconds are also NOT a constant unit. Time is subjective depending on the condition of the observer, so one second could be anything, who knows? So we now have light going some unknown distance in some unknown time. Yet they turn around and claim that its a universal speed limit. And its in all the new pseudo scientific equations, proving that they all are garbage.

Explain that. But your method of explaining things is to post a little cartoon or saying that I am speaking nonsense, without bothering to show why.

You can say what you like, but back up your opinion with some counter argument.
Something, anything..... but not another stupid childish cartoon or empty comment.