Is mass increased or decreased. If mass increases it must gain it from outside influence in other words, mass gain is not intrinsic.\nOr if there is mass loss, it is intrinsic.Than what happens to kinetic energy and potential energy?
138787
How would you lose mass?  By Newton, the mass must not change.  By Einstein, the mass slightly inscreases.
417449
If you neglect the loss in mass due to the energy given off in the process (a very, very, tiny amount of mass at that), then the total mass should stay constant before and after the reaction.\n\nIf you have the reaction,\nA --> B\nThe mass of A equals the mass of B\n\nHowever, that is not to say that what is leftover after burning has the same mass as the original substance burned.\nIn a standard combustion reaction, two products are produced, Carbon Dioxide and water.  Both of these products are in the gas phase and "float" away, taking with them part of the mass of the original substance.  If one could trap and collect all the particles of a reaction in an enclosed space, then the mass will be constant, but in an open system where things can escape, you will generally loose part of the mass in this manner.
5714
Interesting scenario first of all i would like to comment. Well actually the bond is due to electronic forces. Hence mass has litle effect on the bond strength. Thus i thikn the effect of mass change should be a small one!! unless you change the charge of proton too!!
3820
Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.  It's a formula used to calculate the conversion between mass and energy.  For example, an atom has positive protons and neutral neutrons in the nucleus, so how do the protons stay together? well, there's binding energy which actually comes from the mass.  Also, particle physicists have been crashing particles together in a particle accelerator at very very high velocities, and the resulting particle is often bigger than the sum of the two original particles.  This is because some of their energy was converted into mass.  It takes a huge amount of energy to make a very small increase in mass.
295596
hello iam aditya i like this question. the difference is only of some points. i think .001 or something. and yes mass number is the total numbers of protons n nuetrons while relative atomic mass is the mass compared to that of the 12th part of the carbon atom.
296990
Horizontal momentum is conserved throughout the problem. i.e., when half the mass fell downwards, all of the horizontal momentum must be carried in the second.\nThere's too much missing information for me to go farther than that...
296266
It's actually kind of unfortunate the the ultimate speed limit is generally referred to as "the speed of light", because the concepts are actually different.  Also, saying that "the mass increases" really only confuses the issue, and physicists don't really talk in terms of changing mass in relativistic systems.  The "mass increases" argument is actually just a kludge to keep the P=mv (momentum equals the product of mass and velocity) equation working at relativistic speeds, but it makes more sense just to use a relativistic momentum expression and not talk about changing masses.\n\nSpecial relativity, amply confirmed by experiment, shows that things we consider "obvious" about space and time, are not quite as simple as they appear.  Velocities don't strictly add  together, and faster objects become shorter, with clocks passing more slowly.  These results are, in fact, an inevitable outcome of Maxwell's equations, though it took a long time for them to be carried to their logical conclusion.\n\nSo, velocities aren't additive, and there is no global clock which passes equally for all observers.  Given these, it is possible to talk about the mathematics of relativity in flat space.  The math produces a sort of mapping, one which happens to reach asymptotes at the "speed of light".  This defines an ultimate speed limit, a speed beyond which it makes no sense to talk about things.  In a way, something moving at the speed of light is moving at infinite speed in a "mapped space" under the Lorentz equations which govern the way relativistic effects manifest themselves.\n\nSo, the mathematics of the Lorentz transforms lead to the existance of an ultimate speed limit, one for which there is no "faster than this", in the same way that there is no number "larger than infinity".  No matter how quickly you go, the speed of light is always the same relative speed to you, light always passes you at the same measured speed.\n\nLight moves at the ultimate speed limit because it is composed of massless particles, which are required to move exactly at the ultimate speed limit.\n\nSo, the speed limit is mathematical, externally imposed.  The speed of light is the same because photons are massless.  If photons were not massless, they would travel at less than "the speed of light", but there would still be an ultimate speed limit, one which photons could approach but never reach.\n\nThe speed of sound is related to the motion of atoms which carry a disturbance, and because the atoms have mass, they are not constrained to travel at the ultimate speed limit, and in fact are forbidden from doing so, so the speed of sound is below the speed of light.\n\nWhen light slows down, it's because it is being jostled, absorbed and re-emitted, generally impeded by obstacles.  In between such interruptions, it still moves at the ultimate speed limit, but the interruptions reduce the average speed.  To use an imperfect analogy, if you ran at full speed through an empty room, and measured your own ultimate speed, then filled the room with people, you would find that they would form obstacles that could slow you down, but would not speed you up.
412015
we have F= G*M*m/r^2  and F=weight\n\nwhen M=M and r= r/2 then F=G*M*m/ (r/2)^2\n\ntherefore F(new)= 4*F and hence new weight is 4 times.\n\nthis is due to change in the value of g(acceleration due to gravity)\n\nsince F=mg= G*M*m/r^2   and hence only g is effected\n\nand hence weight also changes mass remainig same.
430921
It's a common misconception that the mass of an objects actually increases as the object approaches light speed.\n\nPeople get this from the equation M = m*(Lorentz factor) where M is the "relativistic mass" and m is the "invariant" or "rest" mass. For example, if I'm holding a 5kg rock in my hand, that's the invariant mass.\n\nAs the object is traveling, nothing is actually happening to increase it's invarient mass. Rather, it's best to interpret the equation as saying that it takes an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the object to light speed (for reasons that have to do with messy things). A loose analogy is, when you have your hand out the window in a slow moving car, it's rather easy to move your hand forward, but the faster the car goes, the more your hand feels the effects of the atmosphere and it becomes more and more difficult to move your hand forward. Your hand didn't increase in mass, but from the viewpoint of the muscles you use to move the hand forward, it seems as though it has.\n\nThe equation for time dilation: T = t*(Lorentz factor) where T is the time interval measured by the stationary observer and t is the time interval measured by the moving observer, is of the same form as the "relativistic mass" equation but this doesn't make time and mass the same. Using algebra we can arrange the equations so we get:\n\nT/t = M/m\n\nThis just means that the same characteristics govern both phenomenas and so the ratios are the same.
164433
Mass is defined via acting a force on an object produces an acceleration.  \nalso there is a universal kilogram in (i think) france that is the deffinition of a kilogram.\n\nNow how can a particle be massless... \nThis is defined as its rest mass, so if a particle does not exist at rest then it is going to be massless.  \n\nexample:\nA photon can have energy, and is moving.  so it can be said to have a momentum, and can then be said to have a "mass" but if a photon has zero energy its momentum is zero and its "mass" is zero.  \n\nThe mass of a particle is deffined when it is at rest, so some particles will have a zero mass, especial theoretical particals.
425660
it's the same. Mass of an object has nothing to do with its temperature. The definition of mass is the amount of matter in an object. What you are measuring with a balance is the weight of an object, which is also independent of temperature, and is the force of the gravity acting on the object. \nLook up the definitions of mass and weight on wikipedia.
487352
SURFACE AREA INCREASES\n\nIT'S VICE VERSA
244112
Well, if you get something with the second to lowest potential energy in the world, that energy can go to the lowest potential energy thing in the world and that's it.  Otherthan that, no.  And there's nothing inherent in the material, unless you're talking about chemical reactions, in which case, I just don't know what those two things are.  I hope that's clear.
381453
Mass is a fundamental quality. No matter where something is, it has the same mass. Weight, on the other hand, is the force that gravity exerts on the mass. Though in standard units we measure both in pounds, technically mass is measured in pounds mass, while weight is measured in pounds force. In SI units, mass is measured in grams, and weight in newtons.\n\nTo answer your question, weight will change with distance from the earth's center. Mass will not.
482047
Energy and mass are equivalent, they can be changed back and forth. That is the meaning of e = mc^2, that energy and mass relate by a constant (a very big constant). The energy of a nuclear reactor comes from converting mass into energy. It is exactly the same as saying that a gas engine puts out more energy than it takes in - a gas engine takes in energy in the form of chemical bonds and releases taht energy, a nuclear reactor takes in energy in the form of mass and releases it.
64028
Mass can be defined as any structured  Matter that forms a volume. As opposed to other substances which are not mass and cannot be weighted;examples are masseless particles described in Relativity theories.\nWeight describes an interaction between two masses.\nBoth masses when touching would experience a force which we call weight. We on earth are able to sense weight. The greater the mass ,the more weight we feel.\n\nThe standard of weight is the kilogram which is measured on a balance scale is really a comparative measurement of mass.\nThe reason is that on a balance scale both masses experience the same acceleration. (aceleration is a measure of how much you are pushed down by gravity). Hence ,no matter where the scale is located in the gravity field it will always measure the same.\nHowever the case is not the same in a spring scale,because it directly measures a gravitational force. The scale at sea level would read different weight than the one on top of a high mountain. \nYou would not feel any weight if you were far away from a large mass as the earth. Since you have no mass interaction you would be weightless but not massless. Nevertheless, The gravity phenomena will still keep  you body in one piece.\nThe subject of measuring mass and weighing mass is not very clear to most people. It is very confusing ,so don't feel bad if you find it that way.
16586
In zero g mass is the same, but weight is different because weight is affected by gravity. People don't actually change size except for the fact that with less gravity acting on the human body, pulling it downward, things tend to puff up a bit. I'm not sure if that's what you mean or not. Hope this helps a bit.