Unaware His Majesty Is a Girl - Vol. 5 Ch. 51 - An Overflow of Emotions with Only a Spring Courtyard’s Moon to Witness

[MangaDex]

 

[shemper]

Thank you for your work!

 

[SlowlyApproachingBear]

I think I wrote like 30 comments like this already but this one just keeps getting better

 

[Oeconomist]

The catty is a unit of weight, not of mass. Weight is a force experienced fairly directly (though some theorizing is involved). Mass is a construct involving still more theory.

 

[Karretch]

Prediction: it gets revealed anyways and by the quality of how she's ruled nothing bad will come of it.

 

[MacinteuchPlus]

Surely this will not get discovered by a third party at some point!

 

[ghostwriter.123]

Woah

 

[OnewingedMasios]

The catty is a unit of weight, not of mass. Weight is a force experienced fairly directly (though some theorizing is involved). Mass is a construct involving still more theory.

Not really. Mass is the measurement of the amount of matter in a given volume. Weight is just the force of gravity on an object.
The caveat is both are defined as 1 if on our planet's surface which is why gravity is always X×1g with g being the unit of gravity defined as 1×the gravity at surface level on our planet.
So while yes you could go on the surface of Mars where the force of gravity is only 0,38×1g or 0,38g for short where your mass would be identical but now you weigh only 38% of your weight here, it would not be relevant since on our planet unless you go super high in altitude where the gravity lessons to 0,98g (1:0,98) weight & mass are defined as 1:1 and as such equal.

 

[Oeconomist]

Not really. Mass is the measurement of the amount of matter in a given volume. Weight is just the force of gravity on an object.
The caveat is both are defined as 1 if on our planet's surface which is why gravity is always X×1g with g being the unit of gravity defined as 1×the gravity at surface level on our planet.
So while yes you could go on the surface of Mars where the force of gravity is only 0,38×1g or 0,38g for short where your mass would be identical but now you weigh only 38% of your weight here, it would not be relevant since on our planet unless you go super high in altitude where the gravity lessons to 0,98g (1:0,98) weight & mass are defined as 1:1 and as such equal.

You've written a terrible run-on piece that begins with a fundamental error.

Mass is not a measure of matter. As an object accelerates, its mass increases, with absolutely no more matter somehow being added.

Ultimately, what you ineptly try to argue is that a measure of weight is a measure of mass because, given a fixed gravitational field, the relationship between mass and weight is fixed. That argument is circular. In reality, gravitational fields are not fixed, and one doesn't have to go to Mars to observe the variance.

 

[wlftchtr82]

…Here I am once again screaming at my phone saying “MAKE THE EMPEROR A PILLOW PRINCESS!!!!!!” and that girl isn’t listening to me. I think I need to be louder until the reversal finally happens.

 

[OnewingedMasios]

You've written a terrible run-on piece that begins with a fundamental error.

Mass is not a measure of matter. As an object accelerates, its mass increases, with absolutely no more matter somehow being added.

This is laughably incorrect. You are thinking of one of the definitions of mass (there is multiple) that says

mass is the resistance to inertia

There is not a single physicist alive who would agree that mass increases based on inertia. This is something so basic you can google it and immediately find this. In fact I will do it for you

or we can just look at the wikipedia page on mass vs matter where it says right in the header

In scientific contexts, mass is the amount of "matter" in an object (though "matter" may be difficult to define), but weight is the force exerted on an object's matter by gravity.

Ultimately, what you ineptly try to argue is that a measure of weight is a measure of mass...

I never argued this once, but do continue being an arsehole while pretending you know what you are talking about. I said Mass and weight are equivlent to one another at sea level on our planet and even said on our planet above sea level it changes

...because, given a fixed gravitational field, the relationship between mass and weight is fixed.

No one ever said this besides yourself as well. Again I said at the surface level of our planet they are considered equivlent and only in that hyper specific situation in which almost all weight measurements are being used and as such the difference, especially in this case for a historical measurement, is irrelevant.

That argument is circular.

Please look up circular arguments since even the strawman you presented is not a circular argument. It is just false equivlence.

In reality, gravitational fields are not fixed, and one doesn't have to go to Mars to observe the variance.

Do you remember that part where I said

it would not be relevant since on our planet unless you go super high in altitude where the gravity lessons to 0,98g (1:0,98) weight & mass are defined as 1:1 and as such equal.

since I certainly do. Please look at this sentence and where I said there is no variance on our planet since I can not find it.

If you wanna call someone inept please check what you are going to say is actually correct in the first place.

 

[Oeconomist]

This is laughably incorrect. You are thinking of one of the definitions of mass (there is multiple) that says

No, I wasn't. I was thinking of the definition of mass that informs both Newtonian an Einstein physics, and upon which the gravitational formula that you invoked depends.

There is not a single physicist alive who would agree that mass increases based on inertia.

You are bluffing and perfectly wrong. An increase in inertial and gravitational mass with acceleration is one of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations. You'd be hard-pressed to find any physicist alive who didn't agree that inertial mass increases with velocity, which increase is exactly why nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light. The mass goes to infinity as that speed is approached, without any matter being added.

Citing two sources, neither written by a physicist and both directly contradicted by the Special Theory of Relativity is not helpful to you.

I never argued this once

As I said, you were inept.

I said at the surface level of our planet they are considered equivlent

And you said that in a mistaken belief that the force of gravity is everywhere the same on the surface of the Earth; it isn't.

Please look up circular arguments since even the strawman you presented is not a circular argument. It is just false equivlence.

It isn't a strawman; you simply weren't bright enough to recognize your assumptions qua assumptions, and to see that they begged the question.

Do you remember that part where I said

Indeed, as if only a change in altitude would produce a variation in the force of gravity and as if the only alternative to the force of gravity at the surface was a force 98% of that. It was a weird, inept bit of BS.

Now, do look-up the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Transformations, and do look-up the various measure of gravitational pull both at sea level across the Earth and also across the surface (which is not the same as sea level), and do look into how variations in local gravity are use for studying things such as magma flows.

Your reach very much exceeds your grasp, and I imagine that it always will.

 

[yanderecoverl]

She's really going all out, thanks for lots of yummy moments

 

[Necrophage]

The catty is a unit of weight, not of mass.

Its an ancient, not well-defined unit that existed before people understood the difference between mass and weight, so it makes no sense to argue either way. (Though you are right about mass increasing with speed and gravity not being the same everywhere.)

 

[Oeconomist]

Its an ancient, not well-defined unit that existed before people understood the difference between mass and weight,

It is an ancient unit that existed before they had a concept of mass.

it makes no sense to argue either way.

No, people do not attempt to measure what they do not imagine.

 

[caliopej]

Yes it was from before there was a distinction, but that doesn't change that it was a measurement of mass, since they didn't have the conceptualisation of weight in the sense of weight being distinct from mass. From a historian's perspective, it's appropriate to label it a (largely) obsolete unit of mass.

A person from back then would still be Homo Sapiens, even if they didn't have the concept of genus or species, and the measurement of 'stone' was still a measurement of mass even if they didn't know what mass was. They used to measure a lot of things without necessarily understanding science behind them as we do today. Light was measured before the photon, temperature was measured before we understood that.

Also this is a romance webcomic, my guy. It's really not that deep if they don't get the science 100%, and you trying to flex here is kinda just embarrassing.

 

[Oeconomist]

Yes it was from before there was a distinction

There was no distinction not because they confused the two things, but because they didn't imagine mass at all. It's like saying that they didn't distinguish weight from quantum spin.

it was a measurement of mass, since they didn't have the conceptualisation of weight in the sense of weight being distinct from mass

That's an utter non sequitur. They didn't have a concept of mass at all.

From a historian's perspective, it's appropriate to label it a (largely) obsolete unit of mass.

No; from a historian's perspective, it's very important not to impose a modern way of thinking on past thought, and it is especially important not to impose a modern confusion of laypeople upon past thought.

For that is what we have here. People in a pre-Galilean world had no exposure to a concept of mass, and hence did not confuse it with weight. Modern laypeople have a confused exposure to a concept of mass and treat it as if it is the same thing.

A person from back then would still be Homo Sapiens, even if they didn't have the concept of genus or species

We're discussing not things independent of how they were imagined, but exactly about how they were imagined.

the measurement of 'stone' was still a measurement of mass

No. A stone was and remains a measure of weight, which is not mass.

They used to measure a lot of things without necessarily understanding science behind them as we do today.

But what they didn't do is measure things while misunderstanding the science as modern people such as you do. They had no concept of mass, and so could not and did not confuse it with weight.

you trying to flex here is kinda just embarrassing

The people trying to flex here are you and others offering very bad science, very bad history, and very bad philosophy in response to a very simple, brief comment:

The catty is a unit of weight, not of mass. Weight is a force experienced fairly directly (though some theorizing is involved). Mass is a construct involving still more theory.

And your responding to me without a ping was cowardly.