How do scientist measure the center of mass for a rock?

[The Architekt]

How do scientist measure the center of mass for a rock?

 

I have searched the internet for this answer, but it tells more on how to measure 2 objects from each other, as in G* [m1*m2] /r sqrd ], the gravitational constant of proportionality...

 

BUT! this is not what I am looking for.

 

I have this rock and I would love to just measure its center of mass only, not in relation to another object.

What I envision is this:

 

 

 

Mass of rock time the electron mass, but that is how far I get

 

Any ideas please???

 

 

Thanks!

Edited July 11, 2012 by The Architekt

[doG]

Do you mean center of gravity?

[The Architekt]

whats the difference? the link you gave me says mass is the same as gravity...

 

I would just like to keep this simple, not to complex, thanks

 

 

Ok, wait I saw this link, but what I am trying to do is measure the electron mass in the object:

 

 

http://www.ehow.com/how_2251654_calculate-center-gravity.html

 

Do you mean center of gravity?

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2012 by The Architekt

[doG]

whats the difference?

You get more hits searching for center of gravity instead of center of mass. You indicated you had searched the internet for the answer and not found what you were looking for and I suspected the problem was with the search term.

 

The link I provided lists a number of places to help you find the answer. You are basically trying to find the CG of an irregular shape so you would likely need to integrate to get an exact answer. You could get a rough answer by balancing the rock in each of 3 planes and then finding the intersection of those planes.

[John Cuthber]

What do yo mean by "Mass of rock time the electron mass"?

[swansont]

what I am trying to do is measure the electron mass in the object:

 

What's the connection with center of mass?

[ewmon]

I say, technically, it's "center of mass", but the other term is more common, unfortunately.

 

You can determine it's CoM by a couple of methods that I just thought of, depending on its shape. Sounds like it's an irregular shape, so the suspension method sounds best (and it's easiest to implement too).

 

SUSPENSION METHOD. This method works well for most 3D shapes. You can suspend the rock by a string glued to it at a few selected locations. The string will hang vertical, and the rock will flex about the attachment point so its CoM hangs in line with the attachment point/string. By taking a few photos along horizontal axes of the rock and string, you can then extrapolate the strings into the rock through their respective attachment points, and where they intersect is the CoM.

 

SUPPORT METHOD. This method works with fewer 3D shapes, typically smooth, box-like or flat tile-like shapes, but it also helps with toroidal and U-like shapes. Obtain a stiff, strong, fine rod (usually of metal), and mount it in two bearings near each end and have some ability to spin the rod about it's axis (typically a dial or knob). Place the rock on the rod, and turn the rod to find the place where the rock balances like a seesaw. It can be difficult. You might need to be constantly adjusting the dial/knob to maintain this balance. Take a photo from above of the rock and rod. By interpolating the rod through the rock, the CoM lies somewhere along that line. Turn the rock about the vertical axis by 90°, re-balance it, take another photo from above, and interpolate the rod. The CoM lies where the two interpolated lines intersect, although the depth is undetermined. This lack of a third dimension might be relatively trivial, as with a tile-like rock such as a piece of flagstone. Or, if needed, you might try suspending the flagstone by a string attached to the edge, then taking an edge-on photo, and then extrapolating the the string into the rock to give you a better idea of the CoM's position.

[The Architekt]

Well what I am trying to do is guess work.

 

 

I think if I can find the center of mass for my rock, then I could pin point where the electron also is. This is because I have read about "particle indistinguishability."

 

From what I know on this, what separates every atom is its atomic mass, so if I can find the center of mass for my rock I can also find this electron because electrons also are "part" of the atomic mass, ie protons = electrons.

 

Not always though because of something else about isotopes " i think" in where there are more protons than neutrons, but I just want to keep this simple for now...

 

 

Finding the mass of the rock is like finding a "dimensionally sound" number" that can be worked with to find that one electron in the rock.

The electron and the mass of the rock, are virtually copies of the same thing. Thus to me the rock in reality is made of pure "emptiness."

 

It is this 0 emptiness that I am trying to define as 1 = 0

This may sound odd, but I think there is a way to do this.

 

But this does stop hear, if this can be done, then "time" would be in the hands of the person whom is in possession of the rock, meaning that if the rock is in my hands, and I move it, then time " as per the rock in my hands" would be relative to my hand moving the rock, thus the electron would be relative to me.

 

 

This may be wrong, but what this can help determine is where does time take place...

 

 

Thanks

 

 

What's the connection with center of mass?

 

I have read much about how scientist have said, "at least what I read" that everything is made of atoms, if this is the case, then electrons too must occupy these atoms.

 

Rocks then are no exception but their mass is.

 

Measuring the mass of the rock to its center, can determine where the electron is.

I feel that the center of the rock's mass, when found must be then be squared, like E=mc squared.

 

 

Time then would be relative to itself within the center of the rock, perhaps radiating energy like a gyro within the center of mass for the rock " not on the outside!" But in the inside, but whom knows.

 

 

Thus since E=mc squared, when finding the center of mass for the rock, the number that this represents must then be squared and can be workable like a tensor.

 

 

 

The first thing for me is to find the center of the mass for the rock and I can do some experimenting that may prove this.. Still reading on how to get this center of mass though.

 

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

What do yo mean by "Mass of rock time the electron mass"?

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2012 by The Architekt

[Delta1212]

Well what I am trying to do is guess work.

 

 

I think if I can find the center of mass for my rock, then I could pin point where the electron also is.

What electron?

[swansont]

I think if I can find the center of mass for my rock, then I could pin point where the electron also is.

 

There are likely to be 10^24 or more electrons in your rock. The exact number will depend on its composition and mass.

 

 

Thus since E=mc squared, when finding the center of mass for the rock, the number that this represents must then be squared and can be workable like a tensor.

 

This makes no sense. Center of mass is a location, not a mass.

[The Architekt]

Either you must be testing my patience, or testing my knowledge.

 

Minerals the "stuff" rocks are made have atoms in them, and atoms have electrons...http://www.atomicrocks.com/index3.htm

 

Do I believe this? Well I have never seen an electron so ""technically science says for me""" they don't exist.

 

As per the protocols of science, if it has no shape nor size, if it has no color, smell, taste, if it cannot be seeing and etc, then it does not exist.

 

 

So for me, no the electron does not exist...

 

You can start to imagine how difficult talking about science can be now!

 

 

So then, the center of mass is thus 0 for "anything"?

 

Again, technically as per science protocols it doesn't exist right???

 

So how then and why then is the electron?

It has mass, so its mass must "to" have a center of measure as per the rock or anything else for that mater.

 

To add light photons are still not understood by science, they exist in space but not time.

But time also represents numbers and complex systems, which in turn are able to conclude a generalization of time, space, geometry and etc....

 

This does not apply to the photon light particle, but does "some how" to the electron.

All the pieces of the puzzle are not understood by "anyone" yet....

 

So to answer your question "what electron"?

 

I really don't know at this point, because again ""technically science says for me""" they don't exist.

 

 

You can start to imagine how difficult talking about science can be now!

 

At times we should admit that we may be wrong about everything we know, and look at more simplistic ways of communication, and STOP the dogmatic, sarcasms, and questions like these "what electron"? and links like these:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=center+of+gravity

 

 

sarcastic and such a waste of precious moments.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What electron?

 

 

FOR THE RECORD, HOW CAN LOCATION BE APPLICABLE IF SCIENCE HAS NO CLUE ABOUT WHERE TIME TAKES PLACE, WHAT IT IS RELATIVE TO AND ETC.....

 

 

 

 

 

You totally contradicted yourself, this is exactly what I said:

 

 

You say:

 

 

Center of mass is a location, not a mass.

 

 

 

I said:

 

 

Thus since E=mc squared, when finding the center of mass for the rock, the number that this represents must then be squared and can be workable like a tensor

Thanks for the electron count, will figure this out soon....

 

 

There are likely to be 10^24 or more electrons in your rock. The exact number will depend on its composition and mass.

 

 

 

 

This makes no sense. Center of mass is a location, not a mass.

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2012 by The Architekt

[John Cuthber]

"So for me, no the electron does not exist"

Then what are you doing on a science web site?

 

Re "what electron?"

It's not sarcasm, it's a sensible question.

Your comment "I think if I can find the center of mass for my rock, then I could pin point where the electron also is. "

makes no sense. There are billions of billions of electrons in a typical rock.

Talking about "the electron" makes no sense unless you say which electron you mean.

That's why you were asked "What electron?"

[JMJones0424]

If there isn't a language barrier issue involved, I think you need to take a breath and start over from the beginning. The center of mass of an object is not, in any way, where "the electron" is located. Every atom, of which there are numerous in any given rock, will have numerous electrons. The location of those electrons has absolutely nothing to do with the center of mass. If the rock were hollow, the center of mass of the rock could in fact contain no "rock electrons" at all. I do not believe that anyone in this thread has been intentionally condescending or dogmatic. Instead, we're trying to figure out what the heck you are talking about.

 

A mole* of silicon, a common element in rocks, is 6.02x10²³ atoms, weighing about 28 grams. That 28 grams of silicon would contain about 8.43x10²⁴ electrons. That huge number of electrons is not located at the center of mass, but rather is distributed amongst the constituent atoms.

 

*A mole is a number that describes a group of something, similar to a dozen.

 

EDIT:atomic weight of Si is about 28, not 14

Edited July 11, 2012 by JMJones0424

[ACG52]

Either you must be testing my patience, or testing my knowledge.

 

 

I think the problem is that your questions aren't making much sense. I think you're using the wrong terminology when trying to discuss your idea.

 

It would also help if you stopped with the different font sizes and different colors. They add nothing to the readability of your posts.

[The Architekt]

Well you have 'EXPERT" in your profile, so it is assumed you to be an EXPERT right?

 

 

Also, don't place pieces and sections of what I post or reply as a way to dismantle me.

 

 

 

You left this part out:

 

As per the protocols of science, if it has no shape nor size, if it has no color, smell, taste, if it cannot be seeing and etc, then it does not exist.

 

The point is that I am assuming there is only one type of electron also known as a fermion, is this true?,

 

The phrase "I think" was recommended for me to use "by other members" as a way of letting others know I am not really technically oriented with science terminology and am still learning. I see it makes no difference.

 

 

"So for me, no the electron does not exist"

Then what are you doing on a science web site?

 

Re "what electron?"

It's not sarcasm, it's a sensible question.

Your comment "I think if I can find the center of mass for my rock, then I could pin point where the electron also is. "

makes no sense. There are billions of billions of electrons in a typical rock.

Talking about "the electron" makes no sense unless you say which electron you mean.

That's why you were asked "What electron?"

 

 

 

[ACG52]

As per the protocols of science, if it has no shape nor size, if it has no color, smell, taste, if it cannot be seeing and etc, then it does not exist.

 

 

And where did you come up with this piece of nonsense?

[The Architekt]

Well, well well, I was wondering when you would take advantage and begin your usual:

 

 

you don't know anything

 

or

 

all I got out of this "rant" is that you still do not know what complex numbering systems are.

 

 

or

 

None of this makes any sense at all...

 

 

YOU PLACED THESE ALL OVER MY POST!

 

 

Listen, since you are the expert here, it is obvious that what I say can better be explained, if "you" would kindly help me understand this.

 

I don't understand science yet. I am not afraid to say this to anyone. I don't need to impress my friends, god, nor my leaders. I want to know greater than my ignorant addictions of predictably..

 

 

I will continue to attempt to understand science.

 

 

Until the staff, orders me on a preferred method of "type" I will continue the style of my typing and communication, as "now" I see this is another annoyance of yours.

 

 

 

I think the problem is that your questions aren't making much sense. I think you're using the wrong terminology when trying to discuss your idea.

 

It would also help if you stopped with the different font sizes and different colors. They add nothing to the readability of your posts.

 

 

 

 

HAHAHAH! YOU ARE BOLD.....

 

 

its called the everlasting proof of god, within the domain of science on religion......

 

I see their are some things YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER,,,, HOW FUNNY!

 

And where did you come up with this piece of nonsense?

 

 

 

[ACG52]

 

Ok kid.

 

You're not going to get very far with that attitude. You keep saying 'I don't understand science yet', but you don't seem to want to learn.

 

its called the everlasting proof of god, within the domain of science on religion......

 

 

Which has nothing to do with science.

[The Architekt]

thanks, but why does the wave function " preach" about how it can find the electron?

From what I know it does so by a squaring some unit used in the wave function itself, or something like that.

 

Anyway the point is that so many functions out there says that the electron can be found. Don't know if this is even true anymore.

If there isn't a language barrier issue involved, I think you need to take a breath and start over from the beginning. The center of mass of an object is not, in any way, where "the electron" is located. Every atom, of which there are numerous in any given rock, will have numerous electrons. The location of those electrons has absolutely nothing to do with the center of mass. If the rock were hollow, the center of mass of the rock could in fact contain no "rock electrons" at all. I do not believe that anyone in this thread has been intentionally condescending or dogmatic. Instead, we're trying to figure out what the heck you are talking about.

 

A mole* of silicon, a common element in rocks, is 6.02x10²³ atoms, weighing about 28 grams. That 28 grams of silicon would contain about 8.43x10²⁴ electrons. That huge number of electrons is not located at the center of mass, but rather is distributed amongst the constituent atoms.

 

*A mole is a number that describes a group of something, similar to a dozen.

 

EDIT:atomic weight of Si is about 28, not 14

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

"How do scientist measure the center of mass for a rock?"

They don't.

Why would a scientist care where the G of G (Or C of M if you prefer that terminology) of a rock was?

 

"I have this rock and I would love to just measure its center of mass only, not in relation to another object."

Follow the procedure given above by Ewmon above.

It will actually give you the answer to the question you have asked.

 

I already asked what you mean by "Mass of rock time the electron mass,"

 

You didn't answer.

 

 

"Ok, wait I saw this link, but what I am trying to do is measure the electron mass in the object"

It's not clear what you mean by "electron mass"

The total mass of the electrons in the object will be about 1/2000 of the mass of the object.

The mass of the electron is

9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms

(from Google)

And both of those statements will be true no matter where the centre of gravity of the object is.

 

"I think if I can find the center of mass for my rock, then I could pin point where the electron also is. This is because I have read about "particle indistinguishability.""

You are mistaken.

As I have said there are lots of electrons so talking about "the electron" doesn't make sense.

It's like looking at the earth and asking where the person is.

It's even worse than that. Particle indistinguishability means that you can't refer to a particular electron in a system anyway so "the electron" makes even less sense than "the person".

 

And so on.

 

You keep asking questions that simply don't make sense.

It's hard to tell if this is due to a language barrier, a lack of understanding of physics or trolling.

[The Architekt]

you ask me a question:

 

 

you assemble it to your own liking:

 

you get on my case because you don't agree with the "conversation you are having with yourself

 

 

Its like that here I am noticing....

 

 

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH MY OP???

 

This is about rocks and mass....simple stuff.

 

 

 

Ok kid.

 

You're not going to get very far with that attitude. You keep saying 'I don't understand science yet', but you don't seem to want to learn.

 

 

 

Which has nothing to do with science.

Edited July 11, 2012 by The Architekt

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

Okay, guys, enough with the personal jabs. This is a discussion and poking one another (however "gently" or supposedly "hidden") is unacceptable.

Please lose the attitude.

There's more than one person this is aimed at. Please don't make things worse by replying to this moderation note.

[The Architekt]

This means science has no clue about the shape, color, nor size of anything then?

 

 

How then can time be measured if not from the point of origin?

 

You say:

 

The total mass of the electrons in the object will be about 1/2000 of the mass of the object.

The mass of the electron is

9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms

(from Google)

 

And both of those statements will be true no matter where the centre of gravity of the object is.

 

And I am supposed say, "Like WOW! Ok" and press on from their?

 

You have to be joking right????

 

Language barrier definetly: Reason..

 

 

I like to know things about rocks, and the reason why the above is true. I have known this for some time, by the way.

 

If nature is the same such as the center of gravity for every object,then this world is predicated on nothingness, and science is wrong about everything then. The reason for this is because how then can time be measured if not from the point of origin?

 

 

 

 

 

 

"How do scientist measure the center of mass for a rock?"

They don't.

Why would a scientist care where the G of G (Or C of M if you prefer that terminology) of a rock was?

 

"I have this rock and I would love to just measure its center of mass only, not in relation to another object."

Follow the procedure given above by Ewmon above.

It will actually give you the answer to the question you have asked.

 

I already asked what you mean by "Mass of rock time the electron mass,"

 

You didn't answer.

 

 

"Ok, wait I saw this link, but what I am trying to do is measure the electron mass in the object"

It's not clear what you mean by "electron mass"

The total mass of the electrons in the object will be about 1/2000 of the mass of the object.

The mass of the electron is

9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms

(from Google)

And both of those statements will be true no matter where the centre of gravity of the object is.

 

"I think if I can find the center of mass for my rock, then I could pin point where the electron also is. This is because I have read about "particle indistinguishability.""

You are mistaken.

As I have said there are lots of electrons so talking about "the electron" doesn't make sense.

It's like looking at the earth and asking where the person is.

It's even worse than that. Particle indistinguishability means that you can't refer to a particular electron in a system anyway so "the electron" makes even less sense than "the person".

 

And so on.

 

You keep asking questions that simply don't make sense.

It's hard to tell if this is due to a language barrier, a lack of understanding of physics or trolling.

 

 

 

[ewmon]

Architekt, basically all of what you have said in this thread makes no sense, and your attitude makes no sense, so I voted down your post #11.

 

I gave you two bona fide methods for determining the center of mass of an object, and now you have changed the topic to "the electron" and E=mc². Your statements make no sense separately or together. The terms "random" and "incoherent" seem to describe your posts best.

 

Maybe if you take a deep breath, clear your head and start again from the beginning?

[The Architekt]

YOU WANNA KNOW WHY IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE????????

 

BECAUSE I AM TALKING TO MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHOM SEEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S WHY!

Architekt, basically all of what you have said in this thread makes no sense, and your attitude makes no sense, so I voted down your post #11.

 

I gave you two bona fide methods for determining the center of mass of an object, and now you have changed the topic to "the electron" and E=mc². Your statements make no sense separately or together. The terms "random" and "incoherent" seem to describe your posts best.

 

Maybe if you take a deep breath, clear your head and start again from the beginning?

Edited July 11, 2012 by The Architekt