Mass is defined as both a quantity of matter an object has and also as the measurement of the inertia of an object -- seriously, how can it be both?

We have a see-saw: a big object on the left and a small object on the right. They balance at different positions relative to the fulcrum.Now double their size.

They still balance at thesameposition from the fulcrum -- what can we learn from this? Or what can we conclude from this? (What can God tell us about this?)

The see-saw says the objects, although larger, still have the same mass as the objects they replaced. The objects they replaced have the same mass-inertia and yet they have a smaller quantity of matter in them!?

Relativity here says that we must conclude that Sir Isaac Newton was wrong?

relativity says:

1 mass is a measure of inertia

2 mass is not an amount of matter an object has

3 the size of the objects is synonymous with their amount of power?

Although power and size have different meanings, theyareinterchangeable in some sentences.

Perhaps: the powerful jungle cat, and the large jungle cat -- nobody is going to picture a domestic cat as powerful.

The see-saw is really telling us that the larger objects have more power and the same relative inertial behaviour.

That mass is a measure of inertia, is similiar in meaning to 'mass is a measure of behaviour'. Behaviour is the general, all-inclusive, term, whereas 'inertia' suggests the measurement of mass is limited in application.

If one adopts the former defintion then the measurement of mass is potentially or actually omnipresently useful.

4 A further conclusion from the see-saw experiment is that:

measurment is a comparison, measurement is a relative comparision, a relative comparision is a SET of compared objects or phenomenon.

For example we could have put twenty objects on the see-saw and enlarged the set from a mere two objects.

Is any set at all suitable as a comparison system? Or, are some sets better than others as measurement sets?

Should the measurement set have a limit or not? If it should have a limit how will the limit be decided? If the set is limitless is it also therefore useless?

Is an infinite set an irrationality?

Well, since an infinite set is impossible to model in full, it does not exist, it cannot exist. Therefore an infinite set is out of the question.

If this is true of sets, then what of the infinite number system of mathematics?

We are forced to conclude the infinite set is an irrationality? nd that therefore the universe consists of many different sets, and all of the sets of the universe have definite limits in both directions.

The best-of-all-possible sets, we agree, should describe the highest-possible order between its elements? The most-useful set should exhibit the greatest-possible harmony between its elements?

Musical harmony? Since the musical scale is limitless we have to reject it as the basis of a perfect set, since we agreed an infinite set is useless and irrational.

If I have a ten kilogram weight, then what does it mean if an "infinite" weight is part of its set? How can we say the ten in ten kilograms means something if the set it is in has infinite members? This irrationality is true because if we try to compare the item to all items in our set, then the comparison would be never-ending for an infinite set, and hence no true value of the item would be arrived at.

As a a preliminary conclusion, we can say 'doubt is good' -- because in it there is hope for a better future for evolution. But there is no future where there is certainty.

I suggest relativity perception is absolutely positively vital.

Post script:

The best set is found to be a set of concentric rings that are spaced according to radii the sine of angles 9, 18, 27, ...90 degrees, multiplied by a suitable constant.

The mass of the rings is given by IC (inertial capacity) = 4 Pi Area / c-squared -- where c is the outer-length plus inner-length of any ring in the set.

Why the best? Unlike calculus we have a definite end and beginning of the set, and each member of the set is exactly defined.

if we plot the mass on the x-axis and the ring area on the y-axis we get a curve like a hill, if the x-axis is made logarithmic the hill is symmetrical.

This set was almost-perfectly realized as The Mean or Standard Distribution Curve of Statistical Theory, and we see its approximation in Engineering Electrical Theory where it is called the Maximum Power Transfer Curve.

Certainty in this set, has an unlimited future: like the number of rings of the set is unlimited.

PS: What the above essay is about is the importance of relative measurement in the evaluation of mass. Comparison of masses without a limited set to which they belong is of less usefulness than masses compared within a set. A mass or velocity or power is defined by the members of the set to which it belongs. The best set or "Nest" is a very useful tool in all areas of science and engineering and architecture.

It is difficult to understand the implications of the masses on the see-saw being the same and yet of different sizes or powers. The nest is saying that without its defining limits relative comparison is meaningless or of very little usefulness.