Length isn't as important as volume
#1
Length is a measure of distance. Volume is a measure of how much space an object occupies. Length is a one-dimensional measurement, and volume is a three-dimensional measurement. We live in a three-dimensional world, and it's only natural that real objects take up three-dimensional space. If an object only takes up one dimension, then it's obviously massless, and the only thing that is massless is light, which also isn't a tangible object.

That being said, let us consider two objects. Object one is a cylindrical object of radius 2 and length 3. Object two is a cylindrical object of radius 1 and length 4. If these objects both have the same mass density, it's pretty obvious that object one is superior to object two in mass. Object one has a mass of 12π, while object two only has a mass of 4π. Object one occupies three times the space of object two, even though object two is longer by a single unit.

By the way, some shapes are also superior. For example, spheres are superior to cones. But I will let you justify that. Hurt


Messages In This Thread
Length isn't as important as volume - by 2147483647 - 2011-06-29, 05:39 AM
Length isn't as important as volume - by Shidoshi - 2011-06-29, 06:48 AM
Length isn't as important as volume - by Katie - 2011-06-29, 07:52 AM
Length isn't as important as volume - by Shidoshi - 2011-06-29, 09:50 AM
Length isn't as important as volume - by Solarboy - 2011-06-29, 09:59 AM
Length isn't as important as volume - by White - 2011-06-29, 10:07 AM
Length isn't as important as volume - by Shidoshi - 2011-06-29, 10:46 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)