Abstract
IN the notice of my little book, “Radium Explained,” on April 6, twenty-nine lines are devoted to showing that I have reached a wrong conclusion through, not knowing that mass is measured by inertia, and I am corrected in these words:—“how is the quantity of matter to be ascertained? The choice practically lies between defining mass by inertia at a given speed or by gravity. … As, however, gravity depends on local circumstances, while inertia (at given velocity) does not, the latter property is preferred for the definition of mass, as being more fundamental.” So far from rejecting this principle, I state it, in almost the same terms, on p. 84 of my book:—“Mass, or quantity of matter, is usually ascertained by weighing. But weight is merely the force with which the earth attracts, and this varies with our position on its surface. To get an absolute test of mass, which would be independent of position, we may measure the force required to move or stop a body at a certain speed.” And nowhere in the book have I supported any argument by the repudiation of the principle here clearly stated. This is a question of fact; the other objection taken is equally illfounded, but, being on a controversial point, it cannot be dealt with so briefly.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
HAMPSON, W. The Measurement of Mass. Nature 72, 8 (1905). https://doi.org/10.1038/072008d0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/072008d0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.