Mass and weight are two different things. It does not make sense to ask which is more accurate.
Mass is used to measure an object's ability to resist a force. f = ma, or m = f/a.
Weight is used to measure an object's force applied due to gravity. Measured in newtons, f = ma, or newtons = kilograms time 9.81 meters per second squared.
because of the mass
if seesaw is balanced under its own weight with no added mass on it you cannot balance on one side. If it is unbalanced under its own weight u can add mass to balance on one side with mass depending on distance to pivot
Weight = (mass) x (local acceleration of gravity). Mass = (weight) / (local acceleration of gravity) If you know the weight and the local acceleration of gravity, you can calculate the mass. Anywhere on or near the surface of the earth, the local acceleration of gravity is about 9.82 meters per second2 . As an example, an object with a weight of 9.82 newtons has a mass of one kilogram.
Depend on what exactly do you mean by 'common'. On one hand there are countless photon everywhere which has zero mass. But if you mean everyday objects, then zero weight of cause (free fall, space etc), as I don't think zero mass is even attainable at this scale.
Absolutely not. Mass and weight are two entirely different things. Every object has a mass which is a measure of the amount of matter that it contains. It is a property of the object and is essentially a constant. I say essentially because radioactive decay (and fusion is stars) can alter the mass of an object by converting some mass into energy or the other way around.Weight, on the other hand, is a measure of how that mass is affected by gravitational attraction. On the surface of the earth, a mass of one kilogram will have a weight of approximately 9.8 Newtons, but on the moon, the same kilogram will have a mass of only a sixth as much because the moon's gravity is so much weaker. On a neutron star, on the other hand, the same kilogram mass, would weight about 200 billion times as much as on earth. In outer space, it could be weightless.
Technically... not really. It would perhaps be more accurate to use the terms formula mass and molecular mass rather than formula weight and molecular weight. This because in physical terms, weight is a force while mass is a measure of the amount of substance in something.
A pipette is quite accurate. So yes weighing the contents of one into a vessel to get the weight (mass) would be an accurate way of measuring density.
Well mass is different from weight in one major way. Mass is how easily something can lift more than weight being how heavy an object is. For example a balloon has mass, but a person carries weight.
BMI calculators are not completely accurate as it does not take account for bone density and weight of other organs in one's body. It is normally used as and estimate gauge to measure one's mass.
You can tell if one object has more mass than another by comparing their weights. The object with a greater weight typically has more mass. You can also compare the density of the objects - denser objects usually have more mass.
An accurate weight converter available online is to type in the specifics of what weight conversion someone is looking for and do a search until one is found.
Check your BMI (body mass index) for your BMI, be aware this is sometimes not accurate if you are muscular. Also look for one with weight, height, age, and date of measurements, for the most accurate calculation
The center of mass is a geometrical measurement not considering the weight distribution. The center of gravity is one location on a particular mass structure where the distribution of weight is the same no matter the direction of the measurement as it pertains to that one particular mass structure.
1 cubic decimeter of pure water is 1 liter and weigh 1 kilogram. A mass of one kilogram is a weight of one kilogram at sea level. If you move your subject into space, it will weigh less. If you take it to Jupiter, it will weight more, but its mass will remain one kilogram.
Mass
An atom of lead has more mass than an atom of gold. This is because lead has a greater atomic mass than gold, due to the larger number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in a lead atom compared to a gold atom.
because of the mass