Skip to main content
Physics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

7
  • $\begingroup$ You're determining mass by force and this is exactly what this question is trying to avoid. As you can see, there are other ways of determining mass. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 15, 2021 at 11:17
  • $\begingroup$ What is the problem with force? You can try to avoid it, but how it relates with the difference between inertial and gravitational masses? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 15, 2021 at 11:21
  • $\begingroup$ Note, that force doesn't mean acceleration. We can measure force with a spring. This is how some scales work. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 15, 2021 at 11:22
  • $\begingroup$ The force-based definitions of mass seem to run into problems like having the conceptual difference between gravitational and inertial masses. That's the reason I'm trying to avoid it and looking for other ways of determining mass, e.g. see the conservation of momentum. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 15, 2021 at 11:26
  • $\begingroup$ This is one method of physics: first you find which can be different, potentially, in alternative world, then you find that it is wrong in our universe. This way you find some "symmetry" and formulate it. Einstein did it with "equivalence principle" and found GR. By the way, THERE IS a unit of mass "number of indivisible particles", it is called "Dalton": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_(unit) $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 15, 2021 at 11:34