Uneducated retard here Is it possible for two objects to have

>>8825968

A mass with a balloon on it.

>>8825968
No, at least not in the same field, say you have two weights [math] W_1 = W_2 \implies gm_1 = gm_2 \implies m_1=m_2 [/math]

>>8825969
>>8825975
So you would need what ? Different conditions of gravitation (gravity ?) for the 2 objects and it would make the weight vary, but the mass would stay the same ?
Can you change the mass of an object without directly altering it ?

>>8825984
Not really, but the definition of mass is tricky. It really is just a way to describe matter and how we relate forces and accelerations to an object. It's by human design. It doesn't imply a specific weight or volume.

The only way to get different weights for two objects with the same mass would be to do a clever trick and changing the rate of gravity. E.g. Weigh one while an elevator ascends. This wouldnt be an accurate measurement, ofc.

>>8825984
>Different conditions of gravitation (gravity ?)

Yes

>would make the weight vary, but the mass would stay the same ?

Yes

>Can you change the mass of an object without directly altering it ?

No

File: 1489427513981.jpg (51KB, 640x483px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x483px

>>8825988
Thanks a lot for the quick rundown
I don't think I could handle all the math involved anyway

File: 1489389341378.png (159KB, 327x383px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 327x383px

>>8825997
And thanks to you too

>>8825998
No math needed. Just plop a scale in an elevator and test it out. When measuring an object's weight in pounds, scales are calibrated to work exactly at the level of acceleration it expects the object is in (in this case, g=9.8), so if you interfere with that, you'll get a wrong reading. You could hypothetically move the scale to a high elevation and achieve the same effect, but I'm not sure at what point the magnituse of gravity starts decreasing. The most notable example would be the moon, where the rate of gravity is 1/6 of what is on earth.

>>8826004
And I suppose you could obtain the opposite by weighing something deep underwater
Well, the more you know

>>8825968
Bump