If weight in the space of the Universe is relative, wouldnt then mass also be relative?

Answer 1

Weight is defined as a measure of the gravitational force acting on an object and is measured in Newtons. In other words, weight depends on how strong the gravity is where the object is. On earth, something might weight 600N, on the moon it would only be about 100N.

Mass on the other hand is constant wherever you are in the universe. It can be defined in a few different ways. The most common definition is, basically, the amount of stuff in an object. (A more scientific definition is: Mass is the property of a physical object that quantifies the amount of matter and energy it is equivalent to.) Another way to define mass is an object's resistance to changing it's state of motion if a force is applied (or inertia). It is measured in kilograms.

In common usage, weight and mass are synonymous.

Answer 2

No, mass is the actual amount of matter that an object has.
Weight is relative to the Earth's gravity for us; we weigh that much because of the gravitational attraction of the Earth.

Answer 3

Weight is our perception of mass in a particular gravitational field.
A brick that "weighs" 6 pounds on earth would only "weigh" 1 pound on the moon, but the brick has the same mass regardless of where it is.
Weight is subjective, mass is not subjective.

And for any nitpickers out there, this doesn't apply when dealing with extreme conditions such as inside a black hole.

Answer 4

Weight is a downward force and mass could be taken as a weight, or an area or a volume. So it could be 2 ways of saying the same thing, but it could also be trying to find a comparison between two completely unrelated things.

Answer 5

Weight depends on the local force of gravity, so your weight is relative depending whether you're on the earth or the moon, for instance. Your mass is always the same, though.

Answer 6

The question isn't as dumb as some might think of. The CMB (cosmic microwave history) is redshifted (probably) simply by growth of area, and the quantity of redshift is least in the direction of the constellation Virgo and excellent in the alternative direction. this ought to represent an absolute reference for relative action. If there is an ether, it possibly is immobile relative to the CMB. "The orbital speed of the photograph voltaic gadget bearing directly to the midsection of the Galaxy is approximately 220 km/s." Wikipedia--Milky way Galaxy "via measuring the quantity of the dipole anisotropy (the bluest area of the sky is .0.33 ok warmer than prevalent), we are able to confirm the fee of the earth's action with comprehend to the CMB: the earth is shifting at a speed of 370 km/s in the direction of the constellation Virgo." Duke Univ. "From the CMB information it relatively is seen that our interior of sight crew of galaxies (the galactic cluster that includes the photograph voltaic gadget's Milky way Galaxy) seems to be shifting at 627 ± 22 km/s relative to the reference physique of the CMB (additionally stated as the CMB relax physique) in the direction of galactic longitude l = 276° ± 3°, b = 30° ± 3°.[60]" Wikipedia---CMB "The Milky way is shifting at around 552 km/s[40 two] with comprehend to the photons of the CMB, in direction of 10.5 staggering ascension, -24° declination (J2000 epoch, close to the midsection of Hydra)." Metapedia---Milky way Galaxy If the above figures are precise (you may stumble on slightly diverse numbers at diverse components), you will possibly choose to strengthen up far off from Virgo till you go away Earth in the back of at a speed of roughly 370 km/s. this might require basically as lots capability as changing your speed via 370 km/s in the different direction. So there is not any particular income in matching the fee of the CMB (or the ether). just about conversing, there nevertheless is not any favourite reference physique.

Answer 7

No, weight and mass are completely different.