Time and Clocks: A Description of Ancient and Modern Methods of Measuring Time — John Shaqi
Time and Clocks: A Description of Ancient and Modern Methods of Measuring TimeCunynghame, Henry H. (Henry Hardinge), Sir
Philosophy
Time and Clocks: A Description of Ancient and Modern Methods of Measuring Time
Cunynghame, Henry H. (Henry Hardinge), Sir
Clocks and watches; Time
For consider such a thing as a pound packet of tea. It has size, it
occupies space, it has length, breadth, and thickness. It has also
weight. But what gives it weight? The attraction of the earth. Suppose
you double the size of the earth. The earth being bigger would attract
the package of tea more strongly. The weight of the tea, that is, the
attraction of the earth on the package of tea, would be increased—the
tea would weigh more than before. Take the package of tea to the planet
Jupiter, which, being very large, has an attraction at the surface 2½
times that of the earth. Its size would be the same, but it would feel
to carry like a package of sand. Yet there would be the same “mass”
of tea. You could make no more cups of tea out of it in Jupiter than
on earth. Take it to the moon, and it would weigh a little over two
ounces, but still it would be a pound of tea. We are in the habit of
estimating mass by its weight, and we do so rightly, for at any place
on the earth, as London, the weights of masses are always proportioned
to the masses, and if you want to find out what mass of tea you have
got, you weigh it, and you know for certain. Hence in our minds we
confuse mass with weight. And even in our Acts of Parliament we have
done the same thing, so that it is difficult in the statutes respecting
standard weights to know what was meant by those who drew them up, and
whether a pound of tea means the _mass_ of a certain amount of tea or
the _weight_ of that mass. For accurate thinking we must, of course,
always deal with masses, not with weights. For so far as we can tell
_mass_ appears indestructible. A mass is a mass wherever it is, and
for all time, whereas its weight varies with the attractive force of
the planet upon which it happens to be, and with its distance from that
planet’s centre. A flea on this earth can skip perhaps eight inches
high; put that flea on the moon, and with the expenditure of the same
energy he could skip four feet high. Put him on the planet Jupiter and
he could only skip 3⅕ inches high. A man in a street in the moon could
jump up into a window on the first floor of a house. One pound of tea
taken to the sun would be as heavy as twenty-eight pounds of it at the
earth’s surface; and weight varies at different parts of the earth.
Hence the true measure of quantity of matter is mass, not weight.
The mass of bodies varies according to their size; if you have the same
nature of material, then for a double size you have a double mass. Some
bodies are more concentrated than others, that is to say, more dense;
it is as though they were more tightly squeezed together. Thus a ball
of lead of an inch in diameter contains forty-eight times as much mass
as a ball of cork an inch in diameter. In order to know the weight of a
certain mass of matter, we should have to multiply the mass by a figure
representing the attractive force or pull of the earth.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account