is life about the survival of the fittest chemistry?

"Intrinsic" and "property" are closely related. A thing's properties are intrinsic to the thing. "Intrinsic properties" would be redundant.

That would be a different property called "phase". All phases can have the same mass.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.
Phases are properties of aggregate matter.
A single molecule of water is neither solid, liquid nor gaseous. The phase, as SSB mentions, is a description of how particles interact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Solids and liquids have different types of mass.
And mass is intrinsic.
So each molecule has an intrinsic mass, but the type of mass it has depends on whether it is in a solid or a liquid - and that particular type of mass is the only physicality the molecule possesses.
Am I following so far?

So at high speeds an accelerated material object is gaining matter - there is more matter in an accelerated rock than it started with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Matter Matter exists in various states(also known as phases) from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

Thanks for the correction

Noooooo it gains energy from its rest mass
*****
Rest mass (physics), the mass of a body as measured when the body is at rest, but it is relative to an observer who is moving or not, an inherent property of the body. All matter, such as any object, has some rest mass. Energy, such as light or kinetic energy (the energy of a moving object) has no rest mass because it causes no change in spacetime in a frozen time frame. However, energy affects mass while time passes; therefore, it affects spacetime, so it has mass.[1]

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass

My enlargement of the text

*****

So no matter gain but mass in the form of kinetic energy

Thanks again

Coffee and lunch time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What does the definition of properties and mass and matter have to do with the thread topic?

 

So mass does not have physicality and is not the amount of matter present.

 

Mass has physicality

But as per my post #204 scientists also refer to kinetic energy due to the object moving as mass also

If the object is at rest, say at the top of a hill, it has rest potential energy which does not have mass

This feeds into why objects with mass cannot travel faster than light

The faster the object moves the more mass it gains, requiring more energy to accelerate it faster until, in a positive feedback, it starts to have a mass equal to the mass of the Universe, which would require all the energy contained in (in the rest mass?) of the Universe to accelerate it faster

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Does that mass have physicality?

 

Apparently not

But as noted post #204

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass

As SCIENTISTS call the kinetic energy gained by a moving mass MASS

as per

Relativity tells us that energy and mass are interchangeable

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae161.cfm

I will bow to their far superior knowledge and their definitions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'll try again:
Does the calculated and measured mass of a moving object have physicality?

 

The matter has physicality

Gained mass is the kinetic energy

Together they make up the calculated measured mass

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So mass is not the amount of matter present, and it's the matter - not the mass - that has physicality in a moving object.

Around here, we might remind ourselves that all atoms, molecules, etc, in any physical object, are in motion. Also that this motion changes with the temperature - the mass of an object increases a bit when its temperature rises.

 

Or is it the effect of motion on matter? Mass an emergent property of force in a moving object?
i.e. a relative property from the observer's perspective?

 

https://www.mansfieldct.org/Schools/MMS/staff/hand/atomsheat.htm

Mass an emergent property of force in a moving object?

Part of the total MASS of a moving lump of matter is the kinetic energy (kinetic energy interchangeable with mass) it gained when a force was applied to make it move

Not force. Force is not MASS

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're link ignores the relativistic corrections to Newtonian physics, which are of course very, very small at the relevant speeds and accelerations.
But not zero.

Meanwhile, my latest attempt to follow this "physicality" concept that excludes temperature, volume, shape, etc, was this:

How'm I doing?

 

Matter has a physicality yes

Mass is the amount of matter present so by default has physicality

At speed kinetic energy adds mass to the mass without adding matter or physicality

How am I doing?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are in contradiction. Mass is not the amount of matter present in a moving object, and all objects are moving.
And there appears to be no meaning associated with your term "physicality".

 

Pray tell what it is

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If a photon has zero rest-mass, but acquires mass from its momentum alone, does it suggest that mass is a form of translated resistance? The greater the resistance the greater the mass, which in turn would suggest that the phenomenon of mass is related to size as well?

 

Well, an electron is a single subatomic particle - an example of a single, indivisible bit of matter.

So is a proton - a single subatomic particle - an example of a single, indivisible bit of matter.

Yet the proton masses 1836 times the electron.

So, mass is not directly tied to amount of matter.

And let's be clear: A proton is not comprised of 1,836 units of whatever makes up electrons. A proton's mass and an electron's mass is fundamental. They are fundamental subatomic particles.