What's wrong with this

[Qwert]

 Volts, current are elements of energy. The mass–energy relation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

Relation between mass and weight:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/mass-weight-d_589.html


Wouldn't be better to search internet before/instead of using this site for fundamental knowledge? Or, even better, go back to school; also for English improvement.

[MarkE]

So do you agree that a stationary objects mass here on earth is its weight?
Next-and this is important, so answer carfully. Dose electrical power have mass-eg, volts, current

No.  Weight is an expression of the apparent force associated with the acceleration between multiple masses.  A mass's resistance to acceleration: its inertia, is independent of its proximity to other mass.

No, no one has successfully unified: the electric force, the two nuclear forces, and gravitation.  For now we only know how to treat them as separate phenomena.

[Floor]

Wouldn't be better to search internet before/instead of using this site for fundamental knowledge? Or, even better, go back to school; also for English improvement.

Thanks for the inquiry

Your question is one of the first to be asked, that's relevant to the topic, and I think it's
very relevant.

The topic is for discussion of precisely this kind of question.

As to whether it is better to "search the internet before/instead of using this site for fundamental knowledge".

I think that the internet and the O.U.site,  are both valuable in this respect. I use both for this purpose.

Some of the subjects of discussion on this site are "fundamental knowledge" to me, while others are too "advanced".  This depends on the area of discussion.

"Or even better, go back to school"

I for one have a passion for learning, but I do not enjoy a class room like environment, and this for me, is reason enough to not go back to school. 

Please excuse me for going on so long with this reply.  It's just that the ideas you have brought in to the discussion are so important to the topic.

  "also for English improvement"

If English is your native language, I do not know.  It seems to me that the English you speak, is a little different than the American English I speak. However, you have communicated your points, very well. Thank you for doing so.

I would like to ask you a several specific questions,  perhaps when you have time it.


                  floor

[tinman]

No.  Weight is an expression of the apparent force associated with the acceleration between multiple masses.  A mass's resistance to acceleration: its inertia, is independent of its proximity to other mass.

No, no one has successfully unified: the electric force, the two nuclear forces, and gravitation.  For now we only know how to treat them as separate phenomena.

Quote: In physics, mass is a property of a physical body which determines resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg).

Mass is not the same thing as weight, even though we commonly calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight. A man standing on the Moon would weigh less than he would on Earth because of the lower gravity, but he would have the same mass (he would have to recalibrate his bathroom scale for lunar gravity).

As we are not standing on the moon Mark,and i clearly stated that we only need to be calculating things that are relative to us here on earth,then the SI unit for mass is the KG. I fail to see why you continually must make things so hard and difficult. You have the habbit of turning the simplest of questions into an extreemly difficult task.

So im going to leave you with this question.
lets froget about mass,lets use a measurement term that wont go into some full debate on what something is.
Do you believe it possable to decrease the weight of a vessle where nothing leaves or enters that vessle-->yes Mark,the vessle is air/gas/water tight-->and yes Mark,we are working here on earth and will be testing the device hear on EARTH-->not mar's,not jupiter,and not the moon.
Is it possable to have the same device(vessle)-(once again,air,gas and water tight-nothing enters,and nothing leaves)that dose NOT change shape or physical size,be made to change from being non buoyant to buoyant-->(sink then float,just so as you dont get confused),by changing the state of the fluid inside that vessle.?.

These are very simple questions Mark,and depending on your answer,will depend on wether or not i continue with this experiment.


Edits; I should add that i have already done these experiment's,and now it is up to you to decide as to wether or not you can become some one that i (and many others) can work with,or you wish to continually have a high tech dribble contest with other high tech dribbler's,just so as you can see who has the biggest set of technical gonad's.

[tinman]

Yes Tinman, MarkE has explained very clearly and you're still skeptical.
  Your videos are brilliant, you explain everything in a scientific way and
  people can understand perfectly. Sometimes you may be wrong with
  your conclusions but your experiments certainly aren't made to defraud.
     This thing now sounds like Tin Man-Tin Brain! Just get a fish tank and
   embarrass me and Mark with your proof.
     I'll certainly believe-if you can prove!!!
                   John.

Minnie and qwert.
I am asking Mark these question's not because i dont know the answers,but i want to show(yes show) you the truth using Mark's exact description as to what is what,and if he thinks it is a can do,or a cant do. We will test text book science against actual experiment's,and we will be using Mark's very own words to proove what is true,and what is faulse. We will put up his assumption that we know all there is to know about buoyancy and physics because we have 2000 years of it under our belt,against that of the experiment's of a truck driver. Should be a slam dunk for the 2000 year's of colective data,wouldnt you say?.