Physics is "phucked" until they find out the measurement devices goofed not the objects.
Spaceman
time's seconds do not change rate.
and weight and mass are the same things.
Physics will be lost in time and losing and gaining magical weight.
weight is not lost.
gravitational pull on the weight is.
the gravity is what has different pulls.
the mass or weight is not changing.
some basic science standards are being screwed with and should not be.
1 second = 1 second always
1 pound = 1` pound always.
forces that effects these can change,
but the units scale and objects themselves do not change.
When I eat a 1/4 burger on the moon
It still will make me gain the same amount of weight as if I ate it on
Earth.
so stop being fooled by time changes and weight changes..
you still "weigh" the same on the moon,
(proper weight is only measured at sea level
in vacuum conditions.) (although we don't usually care about the vacuum
unless we are
weighing really small things <G>)
The moon just does not pull you as much.
you weight the same.
your mass is also the same of course.
If you can't use conversions just becasue you are on the moon.
you lost REAL science.
Mass and weight are the same and unchanging
gravity effects the pull on both. (the scale measurement.)
not the object itself.
If it were really that easy and true that in space you weight less.
than...
all overweight people could just move to the SpaceStation and eat like pigs
and still lose weight (or at least not gain any)
since the food "weighs nothing in space"
<G>
Time is also unchanging.
gravity effects the clock not time.
Physics will be stuck until they fix the 2 broken human invented devices.
<G>
the scale and the clock change.
mass and time remains the same.
no wonder it's been so long for any REAL improvements in "REAL physics".
--
James M Driscoll Jr
http://www.realspaceman.com
news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:udo5aea...@corp.supernews.com...
[snip introduction]
> Mass and weight are the same and unchanging
> gravity effects the pull on both. (the scale measurement.)
> not the object itself.
Webster:
weight 6b: the force with which a body is attracted toward the
earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the
product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration
mass 1c: the property of a body that is a measure of its inertia
and that is commonly taken as a measure of the amount of
material it contains and causes it to have weight in a gravitational
field
>
> no wonder it's been so long for any REAL improvements in "REAL physics".
No wonder Spaceburp never made any improvement
in having an audience.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:nLUC8.68448$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
<pasted some dictionary stuff and stuck his head back in the ground>
Good for you Dirk.
Can I hit you with 150000 pounds of "weightless" Spaceship..
<LOL>
You won't get hurt,
it doesn't "weigh" anything according to you.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:udo6lh9...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:nLUC8.68448$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> <pasted some dictionary stuff and stuck his head back in the ground>
Spacedunk getting another opportunity to actually learn something.
Spacejunk waving it away like a dung fly.
Spaceflunk getting dumber and dumber with each transaction.
Spaceskunk almost ready to visit the great master Donald Shead.
Dirk Vdm
Gene Nygaard
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:udo5aea...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>[snip introduction]
>
>> Mass and weight are the same and unchanging
>> gravity effects the pull on both. (the scale measurement.)
>> not the object itself.
>
>Webster:
>
>weight 6b: the force with which a body is attracted toward the
>earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the
>product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration
What's 6a?
>
>
>mass 1c: the property of a body that is a measure of its inertia
>and that is commonly taken as a measure of the amount of
>material it contains and causes it to have weight in a gravitational
>field
>
>
>>
>> no wonder it's been so long for any REAL improvements in "REAL physics".
>
>No wonder Spaceburp never made any improvement
>in having an audience.
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
>
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Dirk Van de moortel
"Gene Nygaard" <gnyg...@nccray.com> wrote in message news:3cdc213a...@news.nccray.com...
> On Fri, 10 May 2002 18:58:27 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:udo5aea...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >[snip introduction]
> >
> >> Mass and weight are the same and unchanging
> >> gravity effects the pull on both. (the scale measurement.)
> >> not the object itself.
> >
> >Webster:
> >
> >weight 6b: the force with which a body is attracted toward the
> >earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the
> >product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration
>
> What's 6a?
http://www.webster.com/
6 a: Relative heaviness : MASS
Dirk Vdm
Gene Nygaard
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Gene Nygaard" <gnyg...@nccray.com> wrote in message news:3cdc213a...@news.nccray.com...
>> On Fri, 10 May 2002 18:58:27 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:udo5aea...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> >[snip introduction]
>> >
>> >> Mass and weight are the same and unchanging
>> >> gravity effects the pull on both. (the scale measurement.)
>> >> not the object itself.
>> >
>> >Webster:
>> >
>> >weight 6b: the force with which a body is attracted toward the
>> >earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the
>> >product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration
>>
>> What's 6a?
>
>http://www.webster.com/
>6 a: Relative heaviness : MASS
I knew that.
Admitting that doesn't preclude you from showing Spaceman wrong, does
it?
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Dirk Van de moortel
"Gene Nygaard" <gnyg...@nccray.com> wrote in message news:3cdc2b18...@news.nccray.com...
> On Fri, 10 May 2002 19:37:28 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gene Nygaard" <gnyg...@nccray.com> wrote in message news:3cdc213a...@news.nccray.com...
> >> On Fri, 10 May 2002 18:58:27 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> >> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:udo5aea...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >
> >> >[snip introduction]
> >> >
> >> >> Mass and weight are the same and unchanging
> >> >> gravity effects the pull on both. (the scale measurement.)
> >> >> not the object itself.
> >> >
> >> >Webster:
> >> >
> >> >weight 6b: the force with which a body is attracted toward the
> >> >earth or a celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the
> >> >product of the mass and the local gravitational acceleration
> >>
> >> What's 6a?
> >
> >http://www.webster.com/
> >6 a: Relative heaviness : MASS
>
> I knew that.
I knew you knew that.
Why did you ask?
Why did I answer?
>
> Admitting that doesn't preclude you from showing Spaceman wrong, does
> it?
Admitting?
You think Spaceman was right?
Dirk Vdm
Jason P
sci.physics is "phucked" until Spaceman leaves.
LOL!!! Get
it? LOL!
Jason Pawloski
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jason P" <pawl...@aol.com> wrote in message news:51566c78.02051...@posting.google.com...
> <crap snipped>
>
> sci.physics is "phucked" until Spaceman leaves.
Noooooooo,
don't let such an easy target like Spacedrool ever leave.
Dirk Vdm
Gene Nygaard
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
No. He's wrong.
You are overstating your case, and giving him an opportunity to
maintain his charade (and meanwhile misleading everyone else about
exactly how he is wrong).
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Dirk Van de moortel
"Gene Nygaard" <gnyg...@nccray.com> wrote in message news:3cdc3fbd...@news.nccray.com...
I don't think I'm misleading anyone.
If anyone has been mislead, let him speak.
I don't have a case. Silly me, I was trying to teach.
Besides I don't think Spacedonkey would see any opportunity
to do anything whatsoever (besides selling second hand tires).
Not even with your help ;-)
It hasn't even read the definitions.
Dirk Vdm
Jim Cristiano
LMFAO!
Jim
J. Todd Wasson
><LOL>
>You won't get hurt,
>it doesn't "weigh" anything according to you.
>
Mass:
You could hit him with a 150,000 lb spaceship and it would probably hurt,
depending on fast they were moving towards each other. :-)
Weight:
If you set it on top of him while floating around in space somewhere, would he
be crushed?
Mass and weight are two different things, Spaceman.
Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://PerformanceSimulations.Com
My little car sim screenshots:
http://performancesimulations.com/scnshot4.htm
Spaceman
"J. Todd Wasson" <jtw6...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020512232145...@mb-mo.aol.com...
>
> If you set it on top of him while floating around in space somewhere,
would he
> be crushed?
depends on the gravity.
the mass won't hurt him either if the weight doen't,
find out PROPER weight please
or start buying hamburgers weighed in death valley for all I care.
It's your loss of mass.
not mine.
> Mass and weight are two different things, Spaceman.
No,
Proper Mass and Proper Weight are the exact same things Todd,
You can't have mass that has 0 proper weight and you can't have
a weight that has 0 proper mass.
Used correctly or properly in Science,
They are the same. (one is american, one is meteric)
seems you don'yt understand american mass.
like how we weight food to find it's mass.
Sames,
different scales.
like yards or meters.
bath are lengths,
one american, one metric, both units of lenth only when properly figured.
Proper weight (such as food industry weighing)
is always equal to mass.
and only physics fools twist it to be different.
conversion of oz to grams works everywhere.
mass = weight.
just as
1 oz always = 28 grams.
Find out how to weight things properly.
you will find the mass when you do.
Boris Mohar
wrote:
>
>"J. Todd Wasson" <jtw6...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020512232145...@mb-mo.aol.com...
>>
>> If you set it on top of him while floating around in space somewhere,
>would he
>> be crushed?
>
>depends on the gravity.
>the mass won't hurt him either if the weight doen't,
>
>find out PROPER weight please
>or start buying hamburgers weighed in death valley for all I care.
>It's your loss of mass.
>not mine.
>
>> Mass and weight are two different things, Spaceman.
>
>No,
>Proper Mass and Proper Weight are the exact same things Todd,
Why two names than?
Randy Poe
I agree. Most crackpots have a single idea they harp on.
Spacenut has an amazingly long list of crackpot ideas,
all of them with high entertainment value. Electromagnetic
sound, anyone? Hydrogen atoms expanding and popping in
space? Space full of electrons? Take your pick.
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:udvb9ci...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "J. Todd Wasson" <jtw6...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020512232145...@mb-mo.aol.com...
> >
> > If you set it on top of him while floating around in space somewhere,
> would he
> > be crushed?
>
> depends on the gravity.
> the mass won't hurt him either if the weight doen't,
doen't?
>
> find out PROPER weight please
> or start buying hamburgers weighed in death valley for all I care.
> It's your loss of mass.
> not mine.
>
> > Mass and weight are two different things, Spaceman.
>
> No,
> Proper Mass and Proper Weight are the exact same things Todd,
exact the same?
>
> You can't have mass that has 0 proper weight and you can't have
> a weight that has 0 proper mass.
>
> Used correctly or properly in Science,
> They are the same. (one is american, one is meteric)
meteric?
> seems you don'yt understand american mass.
don'yt?
> like how we weight food to find it's mass.
we weight?
it's?
>
> Sames,
sames?
> different scales.
> like yards or meters.
> bath are lengths,
bath?
> one american, one metric, both units of lenth only when properly figured.
lenth?
figured?
>
> Proper weight (such as food industry weighing)
> is always equal to mass.
> and only physics fools twist it to be different.
>
> conversion of oz to grams works everywhere.
> mass = weight.
> just as
> 1 oz always = 28 grams.
>
> Find out how to weight things properly.
to weight?
> you will find the mass when you do.
Pardonn mee?
Wear jou triing too tel somting?
Wear jou taking maybee abaut de diverenz bitwean maz en weigth?
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
"Boris Mohar" <borism-no...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:35hvdu8qpt2442spa...@4ax.com...
> Why two names than?
simply because people refuse to give up either one.
Why so many names for House in this world?
cave even works as one..
:)
Spaceman
> exact the same?
When properly derived,
YES!
when just measured with a spring scale,
No.
spring scales don't measure PROPER weight.
Industry found this out many moons ago.
> meteric?
spelling is not a problem for the poster,
the reader has the problem when they can't figure out the word
by context alone.
you must have that problem huh?
I did mean
metric and by the rest of the problems you find with
spelling and such.
It shows you have nothing to prove my FISIKS wrong.
and,
you are a moron that has no clue about how to
comprehend things that are spelled incorrectly.
poor guy.
No wonder you can't figure out the Universe.
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:3CDFC965...@atl.lmco.com...
> Spacenut has an amazingly long list of crackpot ideas,
> all of them with high entertainment value. Electromagnetic
> sound, anyone? Hydrogen atoms expanding and popping in
> space? Space full of electrons? Take your pick.
Randy,
you are a very bad troll,
I never said hydrogen popping in space.
your twisting trollish ways are truly sad.
and so are you when you use them.
BTW
space is full of electrons.
you have no proof of anything other.
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message
>news:3CDFC965...@atl.lmco.com...
>space is full of electrons.
>you have no proof of anything other.
Take an positron, let it fly thru space.
Nothing happens.
You know what happens when an electron and a positron make contact?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Spaceman
"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
news:bavvdug9319jq59qv...@4ax.com...
> Take an positron, let it fly thru space.
> Nothing happens.
Where are you getting this positron from?
How are you containing it ?
How are you shooting it/making it fly?
what keeps it flying if anything?
Does it fly forever and never ever stop?
> You know what happens when an electron and a positron make contact?
Who cares,
has nothing to do with electrons in outer space.
and larger than "normal" atoms.
Scot McDermid
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:CyRD8.76556$Ze.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > exact the same?
>
> When properly derived,
> YES!
> when just measured with a spring scale,
> No.
> spring scales don't measure PROPER weight.
> Industry found this out many moons ago.
>
Sounds to me that Spaceman is actually right but he
is expressing himself VERY badly and confusing a lot
of people.
Lets say we have an american spring scale, a "metric
spring scale", metric balance and a container of
water.
At 4 degrees Celsius one litre of water has a mass of exactly 1 kg.
(In the past, this was used to define the kilogram, but not anymore,
partially because the volume depends ever-so-slightly on the pressure,
and pressure units include mass as a factor, introducing a circular
dependency in the definition of the kilogram.)
If you put that 1 kg of water (in its container that has neglible weight)
on an american bathroom spring scale (on the earth) then that water
is going to weigh about 2.2 lbs. The spring scale measures how much
force gravity pulls on the water in the container.
If you put the water on a "metric" spring scale it will read 1 kg
but it really shouldn't read that. It should say how many NEWTONS of
force that gravity is exerting on the water in the container. There really
shouldn't be such a thing as a "metric spring scale". Mass
should really be measured on a balance. But it is simply
convenient to use a spring scale and report the measurement
in either lbs or kg because those are the units people want to see.
But if we take the water in its container, and our spring
scale(s) and our balance to the moon. Let's say the the
container is sealed so we don't lose any water on the trip.
When we put the water on the american spring scale the
weight of the water will be much less that 2.2 lbs. And
the spring scale will be RIGHT!!! The gravity on the moon
does not exert as much force and the spring doesn't get
compressed as much as it did on earth.
Then we put the water on our "metric spring scale" and it
will be WRONG!!! The scale will read that the water
has a mass much less than 1 kg even though we didn't
lose any water at all. The "metric spring scale" was
meant to be used on earth at 1g. Only then will the
measurement be accurate.
Then we put the water on our metric balance on the moon.
It will be right!
Newtons and pounds are both a measure of force.
Kilogram is a measure of mass.
Spaceman
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:CCTD8.26555$UV4.5093@rwcrnsc54...
> Newtons and pounds are both a measure of force.
> Kilogram is a measure of mass.
You are almost there scott,
but,
you are not geting it all yet.
because,
in reality.
Newtons, pounds, mass.
are all the same things basically in different scales when properly
measured.
all are scales of force.
all Do not actually physically change,
gravity and motion will effect how devices measure them.
but none of them change mass ,
only direction of forces change the measurements of such.
the newton is always a newton,
the pound is always a pound.
How many newtons in a pound?
conversion is possible?
Than they are the same things with different scales.
Got a temperature now
Is it F or C .
<G>
See?
I hope so,
because,
That is science.
and that was physics until the physical changes became magical changes
such as time being a force.
Physic can start a great new branch if it allows the old wrotted one to
drop.
good thing physics is not only One persons tree.
pruning is up to the owner.
I only suggest some nice little trims..
like not forgetting that you should not change units
and if the units change.
there must be a physical force changing them.
and time is not one of those physical forces.
and never has been one.
It's "about time" physics learned "about time".
:)
Randy Poe
>
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:3CDFC965...@atl.lmco.com...
> > Spacenut has an amazingly long list of crackpot ideas,
> > all of them with high entertainment value. Electromagnetic
> > sound, anyone? Hydrogen atoms expanding and popping in
> > space? Space full of electrons? Take your pick.
>
> Randy,
> you are a very bad troll,
> I never said hydrogen popping in space.
Spacey, Spacey, Spacey. You can't get away with this
sort of claim in an archived medium. On April 30, you
said this, in the thread called "Re: The Aether":
> No,
> but a hydrogen atom will expand in outer space like a
> spinning marshmallow.
> It can even grow to a whole meter or more before it tears apart
> and dissapates into smaller parts you can't find anymore.
How is that different from what I said?
> BTW
> space is full of electrons.
Are they the same as the electrons here on earth? As
in negatively charged? And as in producing a magnetic
field if you move through them?
> you have no proof of anything other.
A cloud of electrons would have measurable effects that
we would have seen by now in their effects on spacecraft.
- Randy
Spaceman
> How is that different from what I said?
As I stated,
I did not state it popped,
you said popped,
popped means something different from expanding,
you twisted and added a non -relavant word to my statement
just as you always do and id in this reply but I snipped the rest of the
crap.
Just so you know this time,
Don't ask me anything from now on I won't bother answering someone that
does not want an actual answer.
just prove I'm wrong without asking me anything,
since,
you won't get an answer now.
you should not need one anyway.
You know everything.
Troll.
Randy Poe
>
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:3CE00740...@atl.lmco.com...
> > How is that different from what I said?
>
> As I stated,
> I did not state it popped,
> you said popped,
> popped means something different from expanding,
How is "popped" different from "tears apart and
dissapates [sic] into smaller parts you can't find
anymore"?
> you twisted and added a non -relavant word to my statement
> just as you always do and id in this reply but I snipped the rest of the
> crap.
Including the phrase above, from your quote? Are you
going to say you didn't say that?
- Randy
Randy Poe
>
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:3CE00740...@atl.lmco.com...
> > How is that different from what I said?
>
> As I stated,
> I did not state it popped,
Once more for the record:
> > It can even grow to a whole meter or more before it tears apart
> > and dissapates into smaller parts you can't find anymore.
> you said popped,
> popped means something different from expanding,
> you twisted and added a non -relavant word to my statement
And again:
> > It can even grow to a whole meter or more before it tears apart
> > and dissapates into smaller parts you can't find anymore.
> Just so you know this time,
> Don't ask me anything from now on I won't bother answering someone that
> does not want an actual answer.
You don't like having people actually ask you to put
meaning behind your spoutings, do you? You'd rather
they just be forgotten as soon as you say them. As I
said, you shouldn't post to an archived medium in
that case.
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:udvsjc8...@corp.supernews.com...
Ha, this time Spacebimbo did its best to use English words
to squirt its nonsense. Bravo!
Nevertheless, Spacekaka deserved its first appearance on
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "Mass is Weight, or better: Maaz iz Waith".
Welcome!
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <rp...@atl.lmco.com> wrote in message news:3CE00740...@atl.lmco.com...
Spacenose caught in the act of using its finger for an
evil purpose.
Nice job, Randy ;-))
Dirk Vdm
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:bavvdug9319jq59qv...@4ax.com...
>> Take an positron, let it fly thru space.
>> Nothing happens.
>
>Where are you getting this positron from?
beta+ decay of some isotope. Cs137 anyone?
>How are you containing it ?
I don´t contain it. I´ll just let it fly thru space.
>How are you shooting it/making it fly?
I gets some energy from it´s production. And you can accelerate it
with an electric field.
>what keeps it flying if anything?
Inertia.
>Does it fly forever and never ever stop?
Without interaction, an positron is as stable as an electron.
>> You know what happens when an electron and a positron make contact?
>
>Who cares,
You should, cause it breaks your idea of space.
>has nothing to do with electrons in outer space.
Yes it has. If outer space is full of electrons, a positron should
hit one quite soon, shouldn´t it?
Well, it doesn´t.
>and larger than "normal" atoms.
We speak about electrons. Electrons are not atoms. Electrons are, for
the best we know, particles with no volume.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message news:ksd0eu8l1o2pff4do...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 14:20:15 -0400, "Spaceman"
> <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
> >news:bavvdug9319jq59qv...@4ax.com...
> >> Take an positron, let it fly thru space.
> >> Nothing happens.
> >
> >Where are you getting this positron from?
> beta+ decay of some isotope. Cs137 anyone?
Imposible [I'm playing Spacewillie for a while]
>
> >How are you containing it ?
> I don愒 contain it. I惻l just let it fly thru space.
imossible [Still playing]
>
> >How are you shooting it/making it fly?
> I gets some energy from it愀 production. And you can accelerate it
> with an electric field.
electric fiels don'yt exists
sheesh!
>
> >what keeps it flying if anything?
> Inertia.
<LOL>
>
> >Does it fly forever and never ever stop?
> Without interaction, an positron is as stable as an electron.
MASS = WEighth. SHEEESH!
>
>
> >> You know what happens when an electron and a positron make contact?
> >
> >Who cares,
> You should, cause it breaks your idea of space.
what do YOU know about tires,
huh?
<LOL>
>
> >has nothing to do with electrons in outer space.
>
> Yes it has. If outer space is full of electrons, a positron should
> hit one quite soon, shouldn愒 it?
of course it shoulnd't
sheesh!!!
> Well, it doesn愒.
well it does huh
<LOL>
sheesh! hahahah
>
>
> >and larger than "normal" atoms.
> We speak about electrons. Electrons are not atoms. Electrons are, for
> the best we know, particles with no volume.
no electrons are space i proves it.
SpaceVdm
Jan C. Bernauer
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message news:ksd0eu8l1o2pff4do...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 13 May 2002 14:20:15 -0400, "Spaceman"
>> <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>> >news:bavvdug9319jq59qv...@4ax.com...
>> >> Take an positron, let it fly thru space.
>> >> Nothing happens.
>> >
>> >Where are you getting this positron from?
>> beta+ decay of some isotope. Cs137 anyone?
>
>Imposible [I'm playing Spacewillie for a while]
I was shocked until I read your explanation. ;)
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Scot McDermid
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
>
> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:CCTD8.26555$UV4.5093@rwcrnsc54...
> > Newtons and pounds are both a measure of force.
> > Kilogram is a measure of mass.
>
> You are almost there scott,
> but,
> you are not geting it all yet.
> because,
> in reality.
> Newtons, pounds, mass.
> are all the same things basically in different scales when properly
> measured.
Force and mass are not the same thing, but they are
related. Are you familiar with :
f = mA (force = mass * acceleration)
> all are scales of force.
> all Do not actually physically change,
> gravity and motion will effect how devices measure them.
>
> but none of them change mass ,
> only direction of forces change the measurements of such.
>
> the newton is always a newton,
> the pound is always a pound.
> How many newtons in a pound?
> conversion is possible?
> Than they are the same things with different scales.
Pounds and newtons are both measurements of force. So
yes! I'll agree with you. They are the same things with
different scales. Mass is different but related by f = mA
force (N) = mass (kg) * acceleration (m/s^2)
N = kg * m/s^2
Spaceman
> We speak about electrons. Electrons are not atoms. Electrons are, for
> the best we know, particles with no volume.
ROFLOL!
..
no volume!
<LOL>
too muckin fuch!
magical no volume stuff now huh?
<LOL>
No wonder you are so lost,
you think electricity is made of 0 volume stuff!
<LOL>
Jan,
electrons have volume,
or they could not do ANYTHING!
sheesh!
0 volume = 0 mass.
get that point crap out of your head,
points belong on pencils.
not in reality.
electrons are made of even tinier stuff that is like a superfluid.
and even has different parts to it also just as water has contaminates..
your "nothingness" can't do anything like such.
If something is there it can do something.
If nothing is there, it can't do nothing or something.
Wake up to REALity.
Spaceman
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
>
> Force and mass are not the same thing, but they are
> related. Are you familiar with :
> f = mA (force = mass * acceleration)
I did not say force and mass were the same thing
Why do people around here spin words so much.
Mass and Weight and Newtons are all forces is what I said.
Try learning how to read and not troll.
> Pounds and newtons are both measurements of force.
So is weight.
> So
> yes! I'll agree with you. They are the same things with
> different scales. Mass is different but related by f = mA
No mass is also a force.
> force (N) = mass (kg) * acceleration (m/s^2)
> N = kg * m/s^2
Don't see any sames huh?
they are all forces.
Newtons(Newtons), Mass (Grams), Weight (Oz)
all forces.
all derived from a mass creating a force.
mass in motion, is all there is.
Why twist it to be more than it is.
It even creates the abstract of time.
Boris Mohar
wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:ksd0eu8l1o2pff4do...@4ax.com...
>> We speak about electrons. Electrons are not atoms. Electrons are, for
>> the best we know, particles with no volume.
>
>ROFLOL!
>..
>no volume!
><LOL>
>too muckin fuch!
>
>magical no volume stuff now huh?
><LOL>
>
>No wonder you are so lost,
>you think electricity is made of 0 volume stuff!
><LOL>
>
>Jan,
>electrons have volume,
Ok, than pray tell. How big is an electron?
J. Todd Wasson
>would he
>> be crushed?
>
>depends on the gravity.
>the mass won't hurt him either if the weight doen't,
>
>find out PROPER weight please
>or start buying hamburgers weighed in death valley for all I care.
>It's your loss of mass.
>not mine.
>
>> Mass and weight are two different things, Spaceman.
>
>No,
>Proper Mass and Proper Weight are the exact same things Todd,
This is the first time I've ever heard of "proper weight" or "proper mass". A
quick Google search showed it to have something to do with special relativity,
which is a bit beyond anything I've studied, save for a little read in a
physics book here and there to make my head spin :-)
Could we come down to my lower physics level here for a minute and stick to
regular mass vs. regular weight? When things start moving close to the speed
of light, wierd things happen that are not related to what we were discussing,
I think.
>You can't have mass that has 0 proper weight and you can't have
>a weight that has 0 proper mass.
Maybe, I don't know.. I'm not particularily interested in "proper" anything
here. Perhaps my thinking is rather primitive, so may I pose a couple of
questions?
What is your mass?
What is your weight?
What is your weight on earth?
What is your weight on the moon?
Does your mass change on the moon? (Mass is just the amount of "stuff" that
you're made of.)
What is your weight on a spaceship in deep space, or orbiting the earth on the
space shuttle?
What is your mass in the same situation(s)?
>Used correctly or properly in Science,
>They are the same. (one is american, one is meteric)
>seems you don'yt understand american mass.
>like how we weight food to find it's mass.
Well, I'll admit it, when things move towards the speed of light, I only have a
hazy idea of some of the stuff that happens.. Still though, I think in a
newtonian world, I've got a fair idea of what mass is.
>Sames,
>different scales.
>like yards or meters.
>bath are lengths,
>one american, one metric, both units of lenth only when properly figured.
Hmmm... I was taught rather differently about physics. I would admit that I'm
wrong if my simulators weren't so darned good using what I thought I knew until
now ;-)
>conversion of oz to grams works everywhere.
>mass = weight.
>just as
>1 oz always = 28 grams.
Mass does not equal weight according to the books I've read. Weight is a
force. Mass is just the amount of "stuff" present. Weight is only present if
there's gravity pulling on the mass. From my current understanding on the
subject, weight increases when gravity is stronger, but the mass stays the
same.
>Find out how to weight things properly.
>you will find the mass when you do.
>
When I want to find the mass (of a car, for instance), I take the weight and
divide it by the acceleration of gravity at the location it was weighed at. On
Earth, that's something like 32.17 ft/sec^2. On the moon, the car's weight
will be quite different, even though the mass is the same. Agree?
Spaceman
> This is the first time I've ever heard of "proper weight" or "proper
mass". A
> quick Google search showed it to have something to do with special
relativity,
> which is a bit beyond anything I've studied, save for a little read in a
> physics book here and there to make my head spin :-)
Well,
weights and measures (with countries using all different types)
is always a mess.
but,
Proper weight was introduced for industry.
for the actual amount of product you get without
gravitational forces changing the reading.
If industry did not make this a rule,
McDonalds could package meat at lower altitudes
and you would get even less 1/4 burger than a 1/4 pound.
> Could we come down to my lower physics level here for a minute and stick
to
> regular mass vs. regular weight? When things start moving close to the
speed
> of light, wierd things happen that are not related to what we were
discussing,
> I think.
I just tried to give it at the McDonalds level (I love that level)
:)
Weight as in what we now use it as in Industry and Science,
is mass.
simple as that.
> Maybe, I don't know.. I'm not particularily interested in "proper"
anything
> here. Perhaps my thinking is rather primitive, so may I pose a couple of
> questions?
weight was made mass and called proper because gravitational weight
did not give accurate measures of products such as ketchup(catsup).
> What is your mass?
My weight.
> What is your weight?
My mass
> What is your weight on earth?
120 lbs
> What is your weight on the moon?
120 lbs,
but it does not push against the moon that much.
a balance sacel on the moon will show I weight 120 lbs.
a spring scale (gravity effected scale unlike balance scales)
will show I weight 1/6,
but that is not as I said,
Proper weight.
Science uses proper weight.
not changing weights from gravitational differences.
> Does your mass change on the moon? (Mass is just the amount of "stuff"
that
> you're made of.)
so is weight.
weight is what I'm made of.
> What is your weight on a spaceship in deep space, or orbiting the earth on
the
> space shuttle?
It's the same weight as on Earth except it's floating so scales can't be
used..
> What is your mass in the same situation(s)?
You still don't get it huh?
Mass and weight are the same when propery derived.
> Well, I'll admit it, when things move towards the speed of light, I only
have a
> hazy idea of some of the stuff that happens.. Still though, I think in a
> newtonian world, I've got a fair idea of what mass is.
Nothing crazy happens with speed.
that's all bullshit based upon clocks goofing up..
> Hmmm... I was taught rather differently about physics. I would admit
that I'm
> wrong if my simulators weren't so darned good using what I thought I knew
until
> now ;-)
computers are not reality.
I can simulate a fart of a frog creating a big bang with Good 3D software.
> Mass does not equal weight according to the books I've read.
Those books are either outdated or just plain wrong in these times.
Weight and Mass WHEN PROPERLY DERIVED,
are the same.
> Weight is a
> force. Mass is just the amount of "stuff" present. Weight is only
present if
> there's gravity pulling on the mass. From my current understanding on the
> subject, weight increases when gravity is stronger, but the mass stays the
> same.
the weight does not change.
you still don't get it huh?
> When I want to find the mass (of a car, for instance), I take the weight
and
> divide it by the acceleration of gravity at the location it was weighed
at.
Than you are stupid.
the mass of a car is simply a conversion of the pound weight into kilograms.
A car scale weighs mass.
Wake UP!
the metal is paid for by the mass and that is also the weight.
> On
> Earth, that's something like 32.17 ft/sec^2. On the moon, the car's
weight
> will be quite different, even though the mass is the same. Agree?
No,
the force it pushes against the Moon is less force,
but the weight is the same as it was on Earth.
weight can't change
the device changes the measurement of it.
I can't believe you refude to learn what
Proper weight is.
Proper wieght IS mass.
and it always will be no matter what you say.
or conversion from grams to ounces and back can't work.
Stop being fooled by a devices goof up.
just like a clocks goof up with twins.
sheesh!
Spaceman
and place it on a balance scale on the moon
and I step onto the scale it will balance.
It shows I have a mass of 44.78976 Kilograms
and when you try converting to pounds to show my weight
you get what I weigh on the moon.
I'll convert for you..
120lbs or 44.78976 Kilograms
on the moon.
the force on the ground will not be the same
but the whole weight and mass is still there.
see,
weight is mass when properly measured with a balance scale..
simple as that.
or conversion is all screwed up.
all who argue,
have no clue what proper weight is and should learn
that weight, (when properly figured) is mass.
or conversions can all be thrown out the window.
I truly wish we could fool McDonalds into opening
a burger stand on the moon
and having a burger that pushed with 1/4 pound worth of force
to the moons surface.
:)
I don't think they will,
they will use weight as mass like I do.
bummer.
:)
J. Todd Wasson
>:)
>Weight as in what we now use it as in Industry and Science,
>is mass.
>simple as that.
>
>
Yes, I love the McDonald's level too.
>> What is your mass?
>
>My weight.
>
>> What is your weight?
>My mass
>
>> What is your weight on earth?
>
>120 lbs
So I take it your mass is 120 lb, and your weight is also 120 lb, correct?
They're the same here on Earth (or everywhere maybe as you may say), right?
>> Does your mass change on the moon? (Mass is just the amount of "stuff"
>that
>> you're made of.)
>
>so is weight.
>weight is what I'm made of.
But what about the space shuttle? Aren't you "weightless" when you're in
orbit?
>> What is your mass in the same situation(s)?
>
>You still don't get it huh?
>Mass and weight are the same when propery derived.
No, I must be missing something ;-)
>> Well, I'll admit it, when things move towards the speed of light, I only
>have a
>> hazy idea of some of the stuff that happens.. Still though, I think in a
>> newtonian world, I've got a fair idea of what mass is.
>
>Nothing crazy happens with speed.
>that's all bullshit based upon clocks goofing up..
Well, from the first Google hit search on the "proper mass" you described, it
looks as though that very clock goofing up 'BS' stuff is exactly where "proper
mass" is used:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/Physics/students/physics_specialrelativity.html
>> Hmmm... I was taught rather differently about physics. I would admit
>that I'm
>> wrong if my simulators weren't so darned good using what I thought I knew
>until
>> now ;-)
>
>computers are not reality.
>I can simulate a fart of a frog creating a big bang with Good 3D software.
>
That's rather different :-D Making an animation is not the same thing as
modelling a physical system. Drawing a cartoon is not "simulating" anything in
the context I was speaking of. Believe it or not, aircraft (and many/most
cars, among other things) are frequently "built" and performance tested inside
a computer before ever hitting the production floor. I (tried to ;-)) read an
interesting paper from NASA recently on how the space shuttle's front tire was
simulated to aid in the design process of the nose gear. Oh well, what do
those guys know anyway ;-) ?
>> Mass does not equal weight according to the books I've read.
>
>Those books are either outdated or just plain wrong in these times.
>Weight and Mass WHEN PROPERLY DERIVED,
>are the same.
How are they properly derived? This is all news to me.
>> Weight is a
>> force. Mass is just the amount of "stuff" present. Weight is only
>present if
>> there's gravity pulling on the mass. From my current understanding on the
>> subject, weight increases when gravity is stronger, but the mass stays the
>> same.
>
>the weight does not change.
>you still don't get it huh?
>
Hmm... Let's look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary real quick...
---
Weight-- 6b: the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a
celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and
the local gravitational acceleration
--
That means that weight equals mass times gravitational acceleration, unless the
dictionary was wrong. I guess that would also mean that if there's 0 gravity,
there's 0 weight too, since the dictionary defines weight as mass times
gravitational acceleration.. Hence the term "weightless", in orbit I bet.
>> When I want to find the mass (of a car, for instance), I take the weight
>and
>> divide it by the acceleration of gravity at the location it was weighed
>at.
>
>Than you are stupid.
>the mass of a car is simply a conversion of the pound weight into kilograms.
>A car scale weighs mass.
>Wake UP!
>the metal is paid for by the mass and that is also the weight.
>
>
>
hehe... You thought I was pretty smart for awhile during our tire conversation
recently :-)
Somehow, I don't ever bother taking the pound weight and converting it into
kilograms at any point during this process. That's not converting from weight
to mass (oops!!! Why do that if they're the same thing!!), it's changing unit
systems.
>> On
>> Earth, that's something like 32.17 ft/sec^2. On the moon, the car's
>weight
>> will be quite different, even though the mass is the same. Agree?
>
>No,
>the force it pushes against the Moon is less force,
>but the weight is the same as it was on Earth.
>
>weight can't change
>the device changes the measurement of it.
Again, the Merriam-Webster definition says this is not true.
>I can't believe you refude to learn what
>Proper weight is.
I'm very interested in learning what "proper weight" is. This is the first
time I've ever heard of it. Do you have a link that covers the subject
somewhere? It would be interesting to read. Perhaps it would clear up the
confusion.
>Proper wieght IS mass.
>and it always will be no matter what you say.
>or conversion from grams to ounces and back can't work.
>
>Stop being fooled by a devices goof up.
>just like a clocks goof up with twins.
>sheesh!
We're not talking about relativity here :-) I'll leave that up to the more
knowledgable folks...
Scot McDermid
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
>
> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:6ZXD8.43056$RR3.59898@sccrnsc02...
> >
> > Force and mass are not the same thing, but they are
> > related. Are you familiar with :
> > f = mA (force = mass * acceleration)
>
> I did not say force and mass were the same thing
but then later in the same post
> No mass is also a force.
> Why do people around here spin words so much.
I'm just trying to "unspin" them.
A rock that is just sitting there is not a force. It is
just a mass that is sitting there.
> > Pounds and newtons are both measurements of force.
> Mass and Weight and Newtons are all forces is what I said.
> So is weight.
Pounds and newtons are measurements of force or weight.
You haven't convinced me that mass is a force.
J. Todd Wasson
>> related. Are you familiar with :
>> f = mA (force = mass * acceleration)
>
>I did not say force and mass were the same thing
>Why do people around here spin words so much.
>Mass and Weight and Newtons are all forces is what I said.
This isn't correct (at least in Newtonian physics, I don't know about
theoretical Einstein type stuff.)
Mass is something that can be acted on BY a force, it is not a force in itself.
Weight *IS* a force. They're very different things.
You weigh 120 lb, right? So you're mass is also 120 lb, right? (according to
what you're saying.)
On Earth, you stand on a scale and find that gravity pulls you downwards with
120 lb force. Right?
If the "120" value is also your mass as you say, then you could jump off a
ladder and you'd accelerate according to this:
mass = 120 lb
force(weight) = 120 lb
acceleration = force / mass
acceleration = 120 / 120
acceleration = 1 ft/sec^2
Hmm... The acceleration here is only about 1/32 of what gravitational
acceleration really is. You and I both should know that if you jump off the
ladder, you'll accelerate at about 32.17 ft/sec^2, not a measily 1 ft/sec^2.
An interesting thing happens here though. If we took your weight and divided
it by the acceleration of gravity (32.17 ft/sec^2), then used that for the mass
(bear with me), here's what would happen:
mass = 120 / 32.17 <--dividing by acceleration of gravity--
mass = 3.73 "mass units"
force(weight) = 120 lb
acceleration = force / mass
acceleration = 120 / 3.73
acceleration = 32.17 ft/sec^2
Egad!! Suddenly, you're accelerating properly.. Clearly, mass and weight
could not really be the same thing. Just to make sure, let's look at the
Merriam-Webster dictionary again:
Weight --- 6b: the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a
celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and
the local gravitational acceleration
"The product of" means multiplication. According to this definition, "weight"
is mass times gravitational acceleration:
weight = mass * gravitational_acceleration
That would mean that:
mass = weight / gravitational_acceleration
It does not mean that:
mass = weight
Perhaps you're speaking of something besides weight here.
Scot McDermid
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
If they redefine "weight" to be what you say then this
University of California San Diego site is wrong:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~cdpgrad/weight.html
Scot McDermid
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
>
snip
> I did not say force and mass were the same thing
snip
> Mass and Weight and Newtons are all forces is what I said.
snip
> No mass is also a force.
It sure sounds like you are saying mass, force, weights and newtons
are all the same thing. Let me know when you get your
story straight.
J. Todd Wasson
>celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass
>and
>the local gravitational acceleration
>--
>
>That means that weight equals mass times gravitational acceleration, unless
>the
>dictionary was wrong. I guess that would also mean that if there's 0
>gravity,
>there's 0 weight too, since the dictionary defines weight as mass times
>gravitational acceleration..
Small correction on my statement here. Since weight =
mass/gravitational_acceleration, if gravitational_acceleration is 0, the weight
is not 0 as I said, rather it's simply undefined, meaning it does not exist at
all without gravity. Not that that will change the conversation at all ;-)
Scot McDermid
> >Weight-- 6b: the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or
a
> >celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the
mass
> >and
> >the local gravitational acceleration
> >--
> >
> >That means that weight equals mass times gravitational acceleration,
unless
> >the
> >dictionary was wrong. I guess that would also mean that if there's 0
> >gravity,
> >there's 0 weight too, since the dictionary defines weight as mass times
> >gravitational acceleration..
>
> Small correction on my statement here. Since weight =
> mass/gravitational_acceleration, if gravitational_acceleration is 0, the
weight
> is not 0 as I said, rather it's simply undefined, meaning it does not
exist at
> all without gravity. Not that that will change the conversation at all
;-)
>
weight = mass * gravitational_acceleration
*not* mass/gravitational_acceleration
so mass * 0 = 0 Weightlessness.
Spaceman
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> I'm just trying to "unspin" them.
You can't unspin them,
mass is weight.
without mass you have no weight and without "PROPER weight"
you have no mass.
Learn how to correctly weigh things.
> Pounds and newtons are measurements of force or weight.
> You haven't convinced me that mass is a force.
Then you have no clue how to measure mass.
Spaceman
> Perhaps you're speaking of something besides weight here.
Todd,
I am speaking of proper weight
it figures physics morons have missed industries
fixing of proper weights and measures.
Tell me which scale is wrong
A balance scale or a spring scale?
On the moon,
a balance scale will show you my Earth weight.
Isn't that funny!
Wake Up!
Proper weight IS mass.
there are not 2 different things.
they are one thing measured different ways
spring scales are not used in science
Science only uses proper weight and masses.
and they are the same as long as conversion can be done.
Want a 1/4lb burger from the moon?
You won't get one.
The public that knows industry agrees
weight and mass are the same things.
one without the other is a devices screw up.
no mass loss = no weight loss.
Wake up and stop being twisted by 1900's weight
We have made weight and mass the same when properly
figured.
If we didn't
conversion would be impossible
So,
How can we convert weight to mass?
Tell me?
and tell me when McDonalds is selling
1/4lb burgers they weigh with spring scales on the moon.
that will be lots of burger.
but it will be weighed wrong!
It's sad none of you know HOW to meausre PROPER weight.
Go back to school all of you!
Proper weight IS mass and always will be as long
as there are companies and corperations in this world.
you are fighting something the whole world
accepts for product mass .. (PROPER WEIGHT)
Go learn how to figure it huh?
then maybe you will see it IS it's mass.
Spaceman
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> It sure sounds like you are saying mass, force, weights and newtons
> are all the same thing. Let me know when you get your
> story straight.
Twist so friggen much it's sad for you,
I say.
Netwons, mass, and weight ARE ALL FORCES.
let me know when you take your head out of your ass and listen
to what has been set as standard by Biollions of dollars over your
silly physics head.
Go learn proper weights and measures
you would flunk that today.
weight is mass today.
according to every friggen company and corperation
and the US mint and weights and measures department
It's sad you have ignored the change.
Weight is mass.
according to all who sell things that weigh something at all.
Go read some ketchup bottles or something.
sheesh!
Spaceman
> So I take it your mass is 120 lb, and your weight is also 120 lb, correct?
> They're the same here on Earth (or everywhere maybe as you may say),
right?
When propery meausured
YES!
ALWAYS!
> But what about the space shuttle? Aren't you "weightless" when you're in
> orbit?
No I'm no weightless.
I'm floating.
Is the shuttle weightless?
NO,
it's floating.
> No, I must be missing something ;-)
You are,
you are missing and twisting PROPER weight.
are you a troll too?
> How are they properly derived? This is all news to me.
balance scales measure weight and mass.
spring scales "guess at all sorts of related stuff.
> Hmm... Let's look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary real quick...
Keep looking at other things instead of reading what I state.
It only makes you look like you are being ignorant
A balance scale shows I weight 120lbs on the Moon
figure that out!
How ?
Proper weight and mass ARE The same things.
only fools keep telling me they are not.
bri...@encompasserve.org
> Lets say we have an american spring scale, a "metric
> spring scale", metric balance and a container of
> water.
>
> At 4 degrees Celsius one litre of water has a mass of exactly 1 kg.
> (In the past, this was used to define the kilogram, but not anymore,
> partially because the volume depends ever-so-slightly on the pressure,
> and pressure units include mass as a factor, introducing a circular
> dependency in the definition of the kilogram.)
In the past, this was used to define the liter. But not anymore.
The current definition of the liter is the cubic decimeter. The
current definition of the kilogram is the mass of a particular
prototype. One liter of water under the specified conditions
does not have a mass of exactly one kilogram.
But it's still very close. Within something like one part in
a million.
> If you put that 1 kg of water (in its container that has neglible weight)
> on an american bathroom spring scale (on the earth) then that water
> is going to weigh about 2.2 lbs.
Since american bathroom scales tend to have accuracies much worse
than one part in one hundred, it is not clear whether they
measure force or mass when used on Earth where the force of gravity
does not vary by more than one part in one hundred.
American bathroom scales aren't typically accurate enough to make
it clear whether they measure pounds force or pounds mass.
> The spring scale measures how much
> force gravity pulls on the water in the container.
> If you put the water on a "metric" spring scale it will read 1 kg
> but it really shouldn't read that. It should say how many NEWTONS of
> force that gravity is exerting on the water in the container.
Saying that this is wrong is too strong. It depends on how that scale
was calibrated. If it was calibrated on site using an array of
known masses then it measures mass and if it reads "1.0000 kg" then you
can rely on the truth of that measurement. If, on the other hand
it was calibrated on site with known masses and it reads "9.800 N"
then you cannot rely on the truth of that measurement unless you
have independent assurance that the force of gravity on site
is 9.800 meters per second squared.
Assume that the scale is accurate to four or five sigificant figures
and that the calibration was that accurate as well.
> There really
> shouldn't be such a thing as a "metric spring scale". Mass
> should really be measured on a balance. But it is simply
> convenient to use a spring scale and report the measurement
> in either lbs or kg because those are the units people want to see.
If other postings in this group are to be believed, spring scales
calibrated to produce accurate measurements of mass are in common
use in environments where high accuracy is important.
> But if we take the water in its container, and our spring
> scale(s) and our balance to the moon. Let's say the the
> container is sealed so we don't lose any water on the trip.
> When we put the water on the american spring scale the
> weight of the water will be much less that 2.2 lbs. And
> the spring scale will be RIGHT!!!
No. The spring scale will be WRONG. The pound is a unit of mass.
Your physics textbook was WRONG on that point.
To put that point much less pejoratively, the most commonly
used standard pound is a unit of mass. And your physics textbook
may have swept that tiny point under the rug in the interest of
simplicity.
There are more plausible and more pejorative explanations available.
> The gravity on the moon
> does not exert as much force and the spring doesn't get
> compressed as much as it did on earth.
Certainly. I think we all know this.
> Then we put the water on our "metric spring scale" and it
> will be WRONG!!!
Certainly. Unless you recalibrate that spring scale again at
its new site, it will not provide accurate mass measurements.
> The scale will read that the water
> has a mass much less than 1 kg even though we didn't
> lose any water at all. The "metric spring scale" was
> meant to be used on earth at 1g. Only then will the
> measurement be accurate.
To be very precise, it was meant to be used on earth where the
apparent force of gravity is reasonably close to 1g. The exact
force of gravity is irrelevant as long as it is stable over time
and as long as the scale is not moved far after it has been
calibrated. Alternatively, you can do the calibration at the
factory, knowing the gravitational acceleration at the point where
the scale is to be used. I would expect a good experimental scientist
to at least check the calibration on site.
> Then we put the water on our metric balance on the moon.
> It will be right!
Certainly. (We can agree to hand-wave away any issues with evaporation
and buoyancy).
> Newtons and pounds are both a measure of force.
No. When used without context or qualification, the "pound" is a mass
unit. Check out the definition sometime.
> Kilogram is a measure of mass.
Yes, certainly.
John Briggs
Spaceman
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> weight = mass * gravitational_acceleration
WRONG!
weight = mass
120lb (weight) = 44.78976 Kilograms (mass)
using gravity in the above would chnage the weight
to a very incorrect one
that is gravitational force.
not weight.
the weight does not change
the force acting on it does.
mass being the same is proof.
the gravity changed (the force on the weight) ,
not the proper weight itself
Proper weight does not change with altitude or pressure
or gravity differences.
gravitational force on it does,
but IT remains the same mass so therefore
it still contains all it's proper weight.
.
Go back to school!
.
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
>news:r90E8.19450$L76.1392@rwcrnsc53...
>> weight = mass * gravitational_acceleration
>
>WRONG!
>
>weight = mass
>120lb (weight) = 44.78976 Kilograms (mass)
>using gravity in the above would chnage the weight
>to a very incorrect one
>
>that is gravitational force.
>not weight.
Gravitational force IS weight.
It´s defined to be exactly that.
>the weight does not change
no
>the force acting on it does.
yes
>mass being the same is proof.
no, cause mass is not weight.
>the gravity changed (the force on the weight) ,
weight is the force.
>not the proper weight itself
the proper weight is the force.
>Proper weight does not change with altitude or pressure
>or gravity differences.
yes it does.
>gravitational force on it does,
gravitational force=weight (per definition)
>but IT remains the same mass so therefore
mass remains, true
>it still contains all it's proper weight.
wrong, cause mass is not weight
>Go back to school!
I was there and learned some things.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"J. Todd Wasson" <jtw6...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020513224104...@mb-bd.aol.com...
>> So I take it your mass is 120 lb, and your weight is also 120 lb, correct?
>> They're the same here on Earth (or everywhere maybe as you may say),
>right?
>
>When propery meausured
>YES!
>ALWAYS!
>
>> But what about the space shuttle? Aren't you "weightless" when you're in
>> orbit?
>
>No I'm no weightless.
yes
>I'm floating.
no, you are falling
>
>Is the shuttle weightless?
yes
>NO,
>it's floating.
no, it愀 falling
>
>> No, I must be missing something ;-)
>
>You are,
>you are missing and twisting PROPER weight.
>are you a troll too?
Isn愒 it strange that everyone except you define weight as
gravitational force on a mass, in physics?
>> How are they properly derived? This is all news to me.
>
>balance scales measure weight and mass.
balance scales measure the balance of forces. The don愒 measure
weight, and don愒 measure mass, when not in a vacuum.
>spring scales "guess at all sorts of related stuff.
They measure the net downward force on a mass, and,in vacuum, the
weight.
>> Hmm... Let's look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary real quick...
>
>Keep looking at other things instead of reading what I state.
>It only makes you look like you are being ignorant
You keep ignoring what everyone else says....
>
>A balance scale shows I weight 120lbs on the Moon
>figure that out!
>How ?
>
>Proper weight and mass ARE The same things.
>only fools keep telling me they are not.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:ksd0eu8l1o2pff4do...@4ax.com...
>> We speak about electrons. Electrons are not atoms. Electrons are, for
>> the best we know, particles with no volume.
>
>ROFLOL!
>..
>no volume!
><LOL>
>too muckin fuch!
>
>magical no volume stuff now huh?
><LOL>
>
>No wonder you are so lost,
>you think electricity is made of 0 volume stuff!
><LOL>
>
>Jan,
>electrons have volume,
>or they could not do ANYTHING!
>sheesh!
>0 volume = 0 mass.
Mass doesn´t have much force. Only the gravitational forces are
related to mass. Everything else is not.
The electrical field, however, of an electron is endless.
>get that point crap out of your head,
>points belong on pencils.
>not in reality.
>
>electrons are made of even tinier stuff that is like a superfluid.
I really doubt that you know what superfluid is.
>and even has different parts to it also just as water has contaminates..
>your "nothingness" can't do anything like such.
>If something is there it can do something.
>If nothing is there, it can't do nothing or something.
>
>Wake up to REALity.
Just noting that you haven´t answered anything else in the message....
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Spaceman
> Gravitational force IS weight.
> It愀 defined to be exactly that.
It's also mass then or conversion is impossible..
why do you ignore such.
> the proper weight is the force.
the proper weight is the mass too!
>
> >Proper weight does not change with altitude or pressure
> >or gravity differences.
> yes it does.
NO,
"proper weight" does not ,
gravitational force does.
Proper weight does not change.
it's force towards the ground does,
It's PROPER weight remains the same.
> >it still contains all it's proper weight.
> wrong, cause mass is not weight
sorry but it is..
mass is weight when correctly figured.
you are lost.
you don't even know how to PROPERLY weigh something huh?
> >Go back to school!
>
> I was there and learned some things.
You skipped weights and measures it seems.
You also skipped all industies changes of
what Proper weight is.over the years.
Keep ignoring it for all I care.
It's you that will get ripped off by a product that is not
properly weighed.
You also want to meet me in Death valley with your spring scale huh?
I will sell you some gold and use your spring scale for it.
<LOL>
sucker born every minute is not a false statement.
you are proof.
Want to buy some gold.
<LOL>
How about a Death Valley burger?
<LOL>
you are totally lost.
and have not learned weights and measures.
Go learn about PROPER WEIGHT,
I see you know nothing about it right now.
The entire sales industry of the World states you are wrong.
and agrees with me.
You say all industry is wrong?
you are mistaken,
you are wrong.
Proper weight DOES NOT change.
Go learn how to figure it for once.
Spaceman
> >No I'm no weightless.
> gravitational force on a mass, in physics?
Yes ,
it very strange,
They ignore the entire industrious world of today.
> balance scales measure the balance of forces. The don´t measure
> weight, and don´t measure mass, when not in a vacuum.
<LOL>
solid lost now ..
You are too funny!
never heard of calibration huh?
> You keep ignoring what everyone else says....
No,
I keep adhering to what indutry tells me is
a way of measuring amounts of products without
worrying about gravity changes.
I noticed you keep skipping the fact that a balance scale
is telling me I weight 120lbs on the moon.
It really does.
too bad you don't get why.
the simple fact that mass and weight are the same things.
Industry made it that way many moons ago.
you must like to ignore progress huh?
progress is what made us make them the same.
foolish physics dupes cna't understand it I guess.
since they also allow time to change rates.
If I truly weight less on the moon?
Where did the missing weight go?
magically left on Earth?
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:4kd2euk5ipmv6cn0c...@4ax.com...
>> >No I'm no weightless.
>> IsnŽt it strange that everyone except you define weight as
>> gravitational force on a mass, in physics?
>
>Yes ,
>it very strange,
>They ignore the entire industrious world of today.
>
>> balance scales measure the balance of forces. The donŽt measure
>> weight, and donŽt measure mass, when not in a vacuum.
>
><LOL>
>solid lost now ..
>You are too funny!
>never heard of calibration huh?
A balance scale works with a certain kind of countermasses. They have
a certain uplift in air, and not the same as the thing you measure.
So, a amount of feathers, in balance with a countermass of one
Kilogramm, actually has some more mass as a amount of, say, Iron, in
balance with the same countermass.
>
>
>> You keep ignoring what everyone else says....
>
>No,
>I keep adhering to what indutry tells me is
>a way of measuring amounts of products without
>worrying about gravity changes.
The industries uses weight for mass cause most ppl are stupid.
The industires have to write: Don´t use the microwave oven to dry your
cat!
>
>I noticed you keep skipping the fact that a balance scale
>is telling me I weight 120lbs on the moon.
>It really does.
All the balance scales I know give a result in a mass unit, not in a
weight unit.
>too bad you don't get why.
>the simple fact that mass and weight are the same things.
>Industry made it that way many moons ago.
>you must like to ignore progress huh?
Physics is progress, industry is making money.
Making monkey by taking it from the dumb.
>progress is what made us make them the same.
Knowledge is what made us make them different.
>foolish physics dupes cna't understand it I guess.
>since they also allow time to change rates.
At least they know what units are.
>If I truly weight less on the moon?
>Where did the missing weight go?
>magically left on Earth?
Weight is not conserved. Mass is.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Spaceman
> Mass doesn´t have much force.
Thanks,
You are a definite troll.
BYE BYE.
I knew it.
mass does't have much force..
<ROFLOL>
your funny.
but sad.
Scot McDermid
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
Fine. Industry standards have changed.
"Weight" is now mass. Okay... fine. I get it.
"Kilogram" is a measure of mass. It has always been
a measure of mass.
You are saying pounds USED TO BE a measure of
force but is NOW a measure of mass. right? Okay so far?
I'm willing to say that you might actually be right on this one.
But when you say
> I say.
> Netwons, mass, and weight ARE ALL FORCES.
you have lost it.
Mass is not a force.
A Kilogram is a unit of measure for mass.
A Newton is a unit of measure for force.
Scot McDermid
<bri...@encompasserve.org> wrote in message
news:5kYOXEI$5R...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
So now there are "pounds force" and "pounds mass". Seems like
yet another good reason to ditch imperial (or american, whatever)
and stick to the metric system.
Spaceman
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> Fine. Industry standards have changed.
> "Weight" is now mass. Okay... fine. I get it.
I hope so.
I don't want you to get ripped off by the " improper weight" of something.
> "Kilogram" is a measure of mass. It has always been
> a measure of mass.
> You are saying pounds USED TO BE a measure of
> force but is NOW a measure of mass. right? Okay so far?
> I'm willing to say that you might actually be right on this one.
Weight an mass are both the same things
they are the makeup of the object.
> But when you say
> > I say.
> > Netwons, mass, and weight ARE ALL FORCES.
> you have lost it.
>
> Mass is not a force.
It is a force.
along with weight.
> A Kilogram is a unit of measure for mass.
A Kilogram is also a weight.
> A Newton is a unit of measure for force.
A Newton is also a weight.
why do you twist all of them up?
They are all forces.
they are all derived from mass.
0 mass will make 0 of all the rest.
It's rediculous that physics has twisted it so much.
all things that create force against the Earth
are forces.
all of the above can be measured as forces.
THEY ARE ALL FORCES.
they are merely different scales of force.
conversion could not happen if they are not sames.
can you convert miles to ounces?
No,
because miles are not a force.
can you convert second to pounds?
No?
because seconds are not a force.
can you convert mass to pounds or newtons?
YES!
you can convert mass to pounds and newtons to ounces and
etc..
That conversion stuff is amazing isn't it?
Anything that can be converted to another scale.
IS the same force with a different device and scale
to measure such.
A yardstick and a meter can both be used to measure miles.
the same is true with mass and newtons being able
to be converted to PROPER weight.
Science knows this,
Physics still seems to ignore it.
1 oz = 28 grams always if conversion works at all.
I really do hope you don't stay brainwashed like most here.
Mass is weight.
it has been for a long time now.
Ever since weights and measures found out about
changes in spring scales due to gravity and pressure changes.
It has also been ignored as such for too long in physics.
and that is why
Physics is still phucked.
It needs to come back to the standards for measuring things.
that standard does not allow unit size changes.
Do you really think you can eat more hamburgers while on the moon
because they weigh less?
hmmm?
I should easily be able to force about 6 1/4 pound burgers down your throat
after all .
on the moon it would only be one burgers worth of weight.
See where proper weight comes in?
It saves you from getting sick on the moon
from eating too much burger that supposedly does not weigh that much.
<G>
I'l stick to Proper Earth weight like the whole industrious world does.
and that also means mass according to them and according to
balance scales that even work on the moon.
Spaceman
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> So now there are "pounds force" and "pounds mass". Seems like
> yet another good reason to ditch imperial (or american, whatever)
> and stick to the metric system.
Why ditch it,
Just accept it and use it like it should be.
Both are the same (forces)
just different scales of such.
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
>news:hObE8.49955$WR1.52041@sccrnsc01...
>> Fine. Industry standards have changed.
>> "Weight" is now mass. Okay... fine. I get it.
>
>
>> A Kilogram is a unit of measure for mass.
>
>A Kilogram is also a weight.
No.
>
>> A Newton is a unit of measure for force.
>
>A Newton is also a weight.
No, Newton is a unit of weight. Because weight is a force.
>
>why do you twist all of them up?
>They are all forces.
>they are all derived from mass.
>
>0 mass will make 0 of all the rest.
>It's rediculous that physics has twisted it so much.
>
>all things that create force against the Earth
>are forces.
>all of the above can be measured as forces.
>
>THEY ARE ALL FORCES.
>they are merely different scales of force.
>
>conversion could not happen if they are not sames.
>
>can you convert miles to ounces?
>No,
>because miles are not a force.
>can you convert second to pounds?
>No?
>because seconds are not a force.
>can you convert mass to pounds or newtons?
>YES!
No.
You can calculate the weight of a mass by multipliing with the
gravitation field the mass is in.
W=F=m*g
>you can convert mass to pounds and newtons to ounces and
>etc..
>
>That conversion stuff is amazing isn't it?
That´s not conversation.
Is Length and time the same, because s=v*t?
No!
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Scot McDermid
Spaceman wrote:
> >That conversion stuff is amazing isn't it?
>
"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
> That´s not conversation.
> Is Length and time the same, because s=v*t?
> No!
I was going to say the same thing to Spaceman.
Let me write a few words.
Force (f) and mass (m) are different but they are related.
f = mA (A is acceleration.)
Distance (d) and time (t) are different but they are related.
d = vt (v is velocity)
d = at^2/2 + vt (a is acceleration, v is initial speed)
[Well... since we are being incredible picky "time" in this
case is actually duration. So we aren't talking about a
time such as 1:56:24pm Tuesday May 12, 2002. We
are talking about the duration of time that elapsed since
"t0".]
Spaceman
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> Force (f) and mass (m) are different but they are related.
> f = mA (A is acceleration.)
Listen!
I never have said force and mass are the same things.
Are you a doggy kiss ass troll?
I said mass is a force.
Don't twist my statements and think you are going to be right around here.
people can see such crap easily.
So.
that aside,
I am not wrong so far,
let's move on.
> Distance (d) and time (t) are different but they are related.
Again,
EXCUSE ME.
I never said they are the same things
again you troll.
WHY?
> d = vt (v is velocity)
> d = at^2/2 + vt (a is acceleration, v is initial speed)
ALL IRRELEVANT.
> [Well... since we are being incredible picky "time" in this
> case is actually duration. So we aren't talking about a
> time such as 1:56:24pm Tuesday May 12, 2002. We
> are talking about the duration of time that elapsed since
> "t0".]
and this all shows nothing except you and Jan troll badly.
Mass and weight are forces.
Time does not change rate.
clocks do.
You are the clueless troll or the brainwahsed relativist.
Real people see though your little magic trick now.
stop selling this bologna.
It smells.
It's all gone bad over "time".
--
James M Driscoll Jr
http://www.realspaceman.com
news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
>news:TTeE8.4453$Bw6...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>> Force (f) and mass (m) are different but they are related.
>> f = mA (A is acceleration.)
>
>Listen!
>I never have said force and mass are the same things.
>Are you a doggy kiss ass troll?
>
>I said mass is a force.
Which is completly wrong, as shown above.
>Don't twist my statements and think you are going to be right around here.
>people can see such crap easily.
>
>> Distance (d) and time (t) are different but they are related.
>
>Again,
>EXCUSE ME.
>I never said they are the same things
>again you troll.
>WHY?
>
>> d = vt (v is velocity)
>> d = at^2/2 + vt (a is acceleration, v is initial speed)
>
>ALL IRRELEVANT.
No, it shows your error.
Analog to F=ma
and mass is a force:
Does d=t*v show that time is a distance?
is d=t*v not correct?
What´s the difference between d=t*v and f=m*a?
>
>> [Well... since we are being incredible picky "time" in this
>> case is actually duration. So we aren't talking about a
>> time such as 1:56:24pm Tuesday May 12, 2002. We
>> are talking about the duration of time that elapsed since
>> "t0".]
>
>and this all shows nothing except you and Jan troll badly.
>
>Mass and weight are forces.
Let´s make a vote:
Anyone who thinks mass is a force, please report in.
>Time does not change rate.
>clocks do.
>
>You are the clueless troll or the brainwahsed relativist.
>Real people see though your little magic trick now.
>stop selling this bologna.
>It smells.
>It's all gone bad over "time".
Mass beeing not a force has nothing to do with relativistic physics.
It´s just one point more were you are wrong.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Rain
<MI...@realspaceman.common> writes
>
>"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
>news:TTeE8.4453$Bw6...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>> Force (f) and mass (m) are different but they are related.
>> f = mA (A is acceleration.)
>
>Listen!
>I never have said force and mass are the same things.
>Are you a doggy kiss ass troll?
>
>I said mass is a force.
I don't know what drugs you partake of, and I, most assuredly, don't
want to know if it makes you produce shit-for-brains statements like
this.
>Don't twist my statements and think you are going to be right around here.
>people can see such crap easily.
LOL. Spacey I think the game is up. It is time for you to buy Wolfram's
book.
What, the devil, is the matter with you? You are a pale imitation of the
so-called Nemesis. Although he turned out to be a crackpot too.
>--
>James M Driscoll Jr
>http://www.realspaceman.com
>news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
>
>
>
>
--
The Protons
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Boris Mohar
wrote:
>
>"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
>news:TTeE8.4453$Bw6...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>> Force (f) and mass (m) are different but they are related.
>> f = mA (A is acceleration.)
>
>Listen!
>I never have said force and mass are the same things.
>Are you a doggy kiss ass troll?
>
>I said mass is a force.
This one goes to Specimen museum of notable idiocies.
Spaceman
"Rain" <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fZYKM4u5...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk...
>
> I don't know what drugs you partake of, and I, most assuredly, don't
> want to know if it makes you produce shit-for-brains statements like
> this.
more insults,
no physics?
seems you are losing.
> LOL. Spacey I think the game is up. It is time for you to buy Wolfram's
> book.
book shmook
No game here..
What kind of drugs you on man?
Game?
This aint a game.
This is REAL.
unlike physics lately.
> What, the devil, is the matter with you? You are a pale imitation of the
> so-called Nemesis. Although he turned out to be a crackpot too.
and more but still no actual beef.
only hot air that smells like bologna.
Are you even out of school yet?
Rain
<MI...@realspaceman.common> writes
You can't even write properly - it's all over for you.
For the last time: Sssssssssssssssssspppppppaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccc
cccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. PLOP!
--
The Black Holes
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Spaceman
> PLOP! plop fizz fizz,
oh what a relief that is.
<LOL>
Thanks.
J. Todd Wasson
>
>
>so mass * 0 = 0 Weightlessness.
>
Doh!! My mistake, thanks for the correction :-)
Todd Wasson
---
Performance Simulations
Drag Racing and Top Speed Prediction
Software
http://PerformanceSimulations.Com
My little car sim screenshots:
http://performancesimulations.com/scnshot4.htm
Scot McDermid
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
>
> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:TTeE8.4453$Bw6...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > Force (f) and mass (m) are different but they are related.
> > f = mA (A is acceleration.)
>
> Listen!
> I never have said force and mass are the same things.
> I said mass is a force.
> Don't twist my statements and think you are going to be right around here.
> people can see such crap easily.
I'm not trying to twist your statements. I was trying to interprete
them. You wrote "Mass is a force". How can I possibly interprete
that? You could be saying "Mass = force" but you insist that you are
not saying that.
You could be saying "Mass is a subset of force". One of those
cases where "all masses are force but not all forces are mass."
Is that what you are saying?
In that case, I still disagree. Mass and force are different but
they are related by f = mA.
Spaceman wrote:
> > Distance (d) and time (t) are different but they are related.
>
> Again,
> EXCUSE ME.
> I never said they are the same things
> again you troll.
> WHY?
I was trying to make an analogy.
[distance and time are different but related by d = vt.
--- analogous to ---
force and mass are different but related by f = mA]
But let's skip the analogy.
Please explain how "mass" is a "force".
J. Todd Wasson
>I am speaking of proper weight
>it figures physics morons have missed industries
>fixing of proper weights and measures.
Well, heck.. Is your proper weight 120 lb and your mass also 120 lb? I want
to make sure I'm on the same page here, because you did not respond to the f=ma
stuff about free fall.
>Tell me which scale is wrong
>A balance scale or a spring scale?
>
>On the moon,
>a balance scale will show you my Earth weight.
>Isn't that funny!
>
Not surprising at all really. The force from gravity of the 120 lb (on Earth)
counterweight will drop the same amount as your moon weight does. It'll
balance as long as theirs any gravity at all. But the thing is, that's
measuring "mass", not weight (according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary and
every other source I've ever seen). Sure, it'll tell you what you weigh on
Earth, Pluto, or the Sun for that matter, if you scale the numbers on the
counterweight according to the acceleration of gravity of the relevant planet.
>Wake Up!
>Proper weight IS mass.
>there are not 2 different things.
>they are one thing measured different ways
>
So.... If a Corvette weighs something like 3200 lb, what's its mass? What's
its "proper weight"?
>So,
>How can we convert weight to mass?
>Tell me?
Easy.. Divide the weight by the acceleration of gravity.
Again, I'm waiting for a reference to "proper weight", I've looked and haven't
found it or how it's measured anywhere yet... ?
>and tell me when McDonalds is selling
>1/4lb burgers they weigh with spring scales on the moon.
>that will be lots of burger.
>but it will be weighed wrong!
You bet it will. Because in order to "weigh" 1/4 lb, you'll need 6 times as
much mass.. You'd need about 6 burgers. Perhaps this "proper weight" you're
talking about is actually nothing but the true mass times an agreed upon
acceleration of gravity.
>It's sad none of you know HOW to meausre PROPER weight.
>Go back to school all of you!
Well, in my sim work, there's no point in using the 'proper weight' you're
describing. I deal with forces, masses, and resulting accelerations. If all I
have is the weight, I have to divide it by the acceleration of gravity in order
to have the mass, which can then be used to find the motion effects of forces
acting on the mass, err.. "proper weight" ;-) I've tried using the weight
directly instead of mass, but by golly, my 300 hp little simulated car would
only accelerate at 1/32 of what was expected. Once I converted the weight to
mass by dividing by the acceleration of gravity, it all started working out..
J. Todd Wasson
>
>WRONG!
>weight = mass
No, really. Look here in Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Weight: 6b : the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a
celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and
the local gravitational acceleration
You've seen this two other times now and have not responded to it, or anything
that it's saying, directly.
>weight = mass
>120lb (weight) = 44.78976 Kilograms (mass)
>using gravity in the above would chnage the weight
>to a very incorrect one
>
>that is gravitational force.
>not weight.
>
>the weight does not change
>the force acting on it does.
The weight does not change, the force acting on it does...?
Weight ***--IS--*** a force.. How can a force act on a force?
>mass being the same is proof.
>the gravity changed (the force on the weight) ,
>not the proper weight itself
>
There it is again: "the force on the weight." Perhaps there are really three
things here? Mass, weight, and "proper weight." I haven't seen "proper
weight" before, so won't refute it's existence. However, you're making the
same sweeping statements about "weight" as well. I don't think you see a
difference between the three things.
However, if "proper weight" is really mass, then if your mass or proper weight
was 120 lb, your bathroom scale would say you "weigh" about 3,864 lb...
After all, that's how much force it would take to accelerate a 120 lb mass (or
is it a slug?) at a rate of 32.2 ft/sec^2, right?
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>>> weight = mass * gravitational_acceleration
>>
>>WRONG!
>
>>weight = mass
>
> No, really. Look here in Merriam-Webster dictionary:
>
>Weight: 6b : the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a
>celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and
>the local gravitational acceleration
>
is used for the gravity forve on an object. In common language *and*
in legal definitions "weight" is used primarily in the asme meaning as
"mass" in physics. *And* it was used in this meaning many centuries
before physics appropriated the word for another purpose.
When you weigh an object on a balance scale, you do not measure the
force on it, you compare it with a standard mass. And when you pick a
package of merchandise and read on it "net weight 0.5 kg (or one
pound or whatever)" this *does not* refer to the the force of gravity
on the contents but to their mass.
I'm getting tired of this nonsense.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
J. Todd Wasson
>is used for the gravity forve on an object. In common language *and*
>in legal definitions "weight" is used primarily in the asme meaning as
>"mass" in physics. *And* it was used in this meaning many centuries
>before physics appropriated the word for another purpose.
>
>When you weigh an object on a balance scale, you do not measure the
>force on it, you compare it with a standard mass. And when you pick a
>package of merchandise and read on it "net weight 0.5 kg (or one
>pound or whatever)" this *does not* refer to the the force of gravity
>on the contents but to their mass.
>
>I'm getting tired of this nonsense.
>
Sorry, I just have not heard of this before.. So how do we differentiate
between the two types of "weight"? I think this is where the argument is
stemming from. Spaceman is using both interchangeably without seeing a
difference. So we'd be right in saying that "proper weight" = mass, while
weight = mass * g? What's the correct terminology, anyway?
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>>Oh, please. We just have been over this. In physics the term weight
>>is used for the gravity forve on an object. In common language *and*
>>in legal definitions "weight" is used primarily in the asme meaning as
>>"mass" in physics. *And* it was used in this meaning many centuries
>>before physics appropriated the word for another purpose.
>>
>>When you weigh an object on a balance scale, you do not measure the
>>force on it, you compare it with a standard mass. And when you pick a
>>package of merchandise and read on it "net weight 0.5 kg (or one
>>pound or whatever)" this *does not* refer to the the force of gravity
>>on the contents but to their mass.
>>
>>I'm getting tired of this nonsense.
>>
>
> Sorry, I just have not heard of this before.. So how do we differentiate
>between the two types of "weight"? I think this is where the argument is
>stemming from. Spaceman is using both interchangeably without seeing a
>difference.
Yes, that's how confusion is generated. Though Spaceman manages to be
get confused regardless of what terminology he uses:-)
> So we'd be right in saying that "proper weight" = mass, while
>weight = mass * g? What's the correct terminology, anyway?
>
I'm not aware of the existance of such term as "proper weight" (if
somebody is, please feel free to comment).
Anyway, how do we differentiate between the different usages of the
word. Same as with any other word, from context. Not perfect but
language is often messy this way. Within physics, we use the term
"weight" only for the gravity force on an object and it is separate
from mass. Elsewhere, it depends. When stuff is bought and sold,
"weight" indicates mass. When same stuff is loaded on a ship or
truck, it may indicate a force. As I said, language is messy.
Think of some other examples. When epidemiologist uses the word
"vector", it means something different than when physicist uses it.
Chemist's "derivative" may be something quite different than
mathematician's "derivative". And mathematician's "solution" is quite
different than chemist's "solution". Lots of examples like these.
"Weight" is more troublesome than most because the two different
meanings may be used by same people and are close enough to get
confused.
James Hunter
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> In article <20020515000250...@mb-bk.aol.com>, jtw6...@aol.com (J. Todd Wasson) writes:
> >>> weight = mass * gravitational_acceleration
> >>
> >>WRONG!
> >
> >>weight = mass
> >
> > No, really. Look here in Merriam-Webster dictionary:
> >
> >Weight: 6b : the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a
> >celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and
> >the local gravitational acceleration
> >
> Oh, please. We just have been over this. In physics the term weight
> is used for the gravity forve on an object. In common language *and*
> in legal definitions "weight" is used primarily in the asme meaning as
> "mass" in physics. *And* it was used in this meaning many centuries
> before physics appropriated the word for another purpose.
Well the confusion comes from that "scientists" have
to be kept informed that you cannot appropriate
a supposedly universal quantity, MORONS.
Long live the Quarter Pounders and bathroom scales.
There will be only Death for Napolean and his fellow Eurotarts
once we get these time machines working.
Spaceman
<me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:xolE8.85$s4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
> When you weigh an object on a balance scale, you do not measure the
> force on it, you compare it with a standard mass. And when you pick a
> package of merchandise and read on it "net weight 0.5 kg (or one
> pound or whatever)" this *does not* refer to the the force of gravity
> on the contents but to their mass.
>
> I'm getting tired of this nonsense.
I'm sorry,
I can't believe they won't accept the truth.,
I'll give up on them.
All I know is I will move out of the way of weightless things
cause they are not weightless. (they still have all the capability of weight
that they have when thay push on Earth.
weightless is a magic term.
in reality ,
weight does not change.
force upon the weight does.
0 weight would mean 0 mass and that's impossible.
the object (such as a Space Shuttle) does not change physical form,
so why the hell would it change weight.
The force it produces upon grounds changes,
but it's weight is always there.
unchanging.
nothing in the object changed!
only fools think that way.
the device changed force readings,
the weight remained the same.
Spaceman
<me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:QlmE8.87$s4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
> Yes, that's how confusion is generated. Though Spaceman manages to be
> get confused regardless of what terminology he uses:-)
Fuck you ,
they twist and troll ,
and now you do too evenb though I'm correct.
Fuck Off MERON.
Spaceman
"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
news:3CE24B31...@Jhuapl.edu...
>
> Well the confusion comes from that "scientists" have
> to be kept informed that you cannot appropriate
> a supposedly universal quantity, MORONS.
>
> Long live the Quarter Pounders and bathroom scales.
> There will be only Death for Napolean and his fellow Eurotarts
> once we get these time machines working.
<LOL>
Spaceman
"J. Todd Wasson" <jtw6...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020514234638...@mb-bk.aol.com...
> Easy.. Divide the weight by the acceleration of gravity.
So,
regular conversion does not work,
Wake Up.
nevermind,
you are lost!
the object does not change ANYTHING!
the surroundings and forces that surround it do.
You can think the thing actually changes.,
but it does not.
Please ,
ignore the weight and let the mass hit you some day.
Stand in front of the WEIGHTLESS Spaceshuttle
at 20,000 mile per hour.
so they you can see it won't hurt you according to you
since it's weightless.
your the confused one,
weightless is impossible.
It would mean massless in conversion.
weighless does not weighless
it has less force towards the ground naturally.
but still has it's entire natural WEIGHT wherever it goes
Let me ask you and you can ignore this like the others.
WHERE DOES THE WEIGHT GO IF YOU ARE LESS WEIGHT
IN SPACE?
HUH!
where is it now!
did it magically lighten it's mass?
<LOL>
weightless is a joke.
it actually means massless.
and that is also a joke.
Spaceman
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> Mass and force are different but
> they are related by f = mA.
show me the "force" being applied to a table leg.
It is a force.
mass of the table top is 10 lbs.
there are 4 legs and 0 Acceleration.
f = mA you say so..
with that ..
your math states.
0 = 10*0
your math is crap!
the leg has 0 force on it.
<LOL>
WRONG!
What happens when I place 100 lbs on the table.
the leg does not accelerate yet still so
it still has 0 force on it according to your crap math.
What causes that force that is not there accordingto your math
yet could end up breaking the leg with a FORCE of mass?
ONLY ONE THING
MASS!
MASS IS THE FORCE!
and your math is crap.
It does not show actual force.
It is wrong.
Or the table since the leg does not move
can't hold any mass on it since force can't build
without acceration according to your bad math.
Randy Poe
> What, the devil, is the matter with you? You are a pale imitation of the
> so-called Nemesis. Although he turned out to be a crackpot too.
Spacenut actually used the phrase "chicken feather
voodoo" recently. But not with Nemesis' style.
This week he seems to be channeling some distorted version
of Gene Nygaard's commercial-definition-of-weight message.
Obviously the channel is a noisy one.
- Randy
Randy Poe
>
> "Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
> news:ue300i3...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> > news:TTeE8.4453$Bw6...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > > Force (f) and mass (m) are different but they are related.
> > > f = mA (A is acceleration.)
> >
> > Listen!
> > I never have said force and mass are the same things.
> snip
> > I said mass is a force.
> > Don't twist my statements and think you are going to be right around here.
> > people can see such crap easily.
>
> I'm not trying to twist your statements. I was trying to interprete
> them.
That's what "twist" means in the Spacehead lexicon. Any
attempt to follow up on his posts or to quote him back
at himself will get you the "twist/troll" reflex.
- Randy
Boris Mohar
wrote:
>Let me ask you and you can ignore this like the others.
>
>WHERE DOES THE WEIGHT GO IF YOU ARE LESS WEIGHT
>IN SPACE?
Weight is the manifestation of interactive gravitational attraction.
>HUH!
Huh?
>where is it now!
Where does the light go when you flick a switch?
>did it magically lighten it's mass?
><LOL>
Mass is still there
>weightless is a joke.
>it actually means massless.
>and that is also a joke.
You are a yokel.
Boris Mohar
wrote:
>
>"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
>news:0kkE8.2519$AU.4474@sccrnsc02...
>> Mass and force are different but
>> they are related by f = mA.
>
>show me the "force" being applied to a table leg.
>It is a force.
>
>mass of the table top is 10 lbs.
>there are 4 legs and 0 Acceleration.
>
Why zero Acceleration?
Let me guess.
Because it is not moving?
Is that what you were thinking?
Gene Nygaard
>>Todd,
>>I am speaking of proper weight
>>it figures physics morons have missed industries
>>fixing of proper weights and measures.
>
> Well, heck.. Is your proper weight 120 lb and your mass also 120 lb? \
It ought to be.
>I want
>to make sure I'm on the same page here, because you did not respond to the f=ma
>stuff about free fall.
>
>>Tell me which scale is wrong
>>A balance scale or a spring scale?
>>
>>On the moon,
>>a balance scale will show you my Earth weight.
>>Isn't that funny!
>>
>
> Not surprising at all really. The force from gravity of the 120 lb (on Earth)
>counterweight will drop the same amount as your moon weight does. It'll
>balance as long as theirs any gravity at all. But the thing is, that's
>measuring "mass", not weight (according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary and
>every other source I've ever seen).
Haven't actually READ any of those dictionaries, have you?
Almost all of them have more mass definitions than force definitions;
the ones arranged chronologically have the mass definitions first.
The ones arranged by most common usage have the definitions as
synonyms for mass first.
>ure, it'll tell you what you weigh on
>Earth, Pluto, or the Sun for that matter, if you scale the numbers on the
>counterweight according to the acceleration of gravity of the relevant planet.
>
> >Wake Up!
>>Proper weight IS mass.
>>there are not 2 different things.
>>they are one thing measured different ways
>>
>
>So.... If a Corvette weighs something like 3200 lb, what's its mass? What's
>its "proper weight"?
When we talk about the "weight" of a Corvette, it is almost always
mass that we are talking about. It is expressed in kilograms as well
in many places--and never in newtons except maybe in an introductory
physics textbook.
>
>>So,
>>How can we convert weight to mass?
>>Tell me?
>
>Easy.. Divide the weight by the acceleration of gravity.
>
>Again, I'm waiting for a reference to "proper weight", I've looked and haven't
>found it or how it's measured anywhere yet... ?
>
>>and tell me when McDonalds is selling
>>1/4lb burgers they weigh with spring scales on the moon.
>>that will be lots of burger.
>>but it will be weighed wrong!
>
>You bet it will. Because in order to "weigh" 1/4 lb, you'll need 6 times as
>much mass.. You'd need about 6 burgers. Perhaps this "proper weight" you're
>talking about is actually nothing but the true mass times an agreed upon
>acceleration of gravity.
You are using the wrong pounds. The pounds that are legal for this
purpose are the ones legally defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg.
Spaceman has a lot of this all screwed up, but he has this part right.
>
>>It's sad none of you know HOW to meausre PROPER weight.
>>Go back to school all of you!
>
>Well, in my sim work, there's no point in using the 'proper weight' you're
>describing. I deal with forces, masses, and resulting accelerations. If all I
>have is the weight, I have to divide it by the acceleration of gravity in order
>to have the mass, which can then be used to find the motion effects of forces
>acting on the mass, err.. "proper weight" ;-) I've tried using the weight
>directly instead of mass, but by golly, my 300 hp little simulated car would
>only accelerate at 1/32 of what was expected. Once I converted the weight to
>mass by dividing by the acceleration of gravity, it all started working out..
>:-)
The really silly concept is "earth weight" or "standard
weight"--terms used to express measurements of mass in units of force.
What real purpose do they serve?
One reason we see those terms used so often in the U.S.A. is because
there are a lot of fools in engineering and science who don't know
what a pound is, having been deliberately and intentionally mislead on
this point by a couple of generations of textbooks.
--
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
"It's not the things you don't know
what gets you into trouble.
"It's the things you do know
that just ain't so."
Will Rogers
Gene Nygaard
<sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote:
>
>"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
>news:ue1vsrp...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
>> news:ts%D8.19375$L76.1440@rwcrnsc53...
>> > It sure sounds like you are saying mass, force, weights and newtons
>> > are all the same thing. Let me know when you get your
>> > story straight.
>>
>> Twist so friggen much it's sad for you,
>>
>> I say.
>> Netwons, mass, and weight ARE ALL FORCES.
>>
>> let me know when you take your head out of your ass and listen
>> to what has been set as standard by Biollions of dollars over your
>> silly physics head.
>>
>> Go learn proper weights and measures
>> you would flunk that today.
>>
>> weight is mass today.
>> according to every friggen company and corperation
>> and the US mint and weights and measures department
>>
>> It's sad you have ignored the change.
>>
>> Weight is mass.
>> according to all who sell things that weigh something at all.
>>
>> Go read some ketchup bottles or something.
>> sheesh!
>
>Fine. Industry standards have changed.
>"Weight" is now mass. Okay... fine. I get it.
>
>"Kilogram" is a measure of mass. It has always been
>a measure of mass.
>You are saying pounds USED TO BE a measure of
>force but is NOW a measure of mass. right? Okay so far?
WHo knows what Spaceman is saying?
But this is in fact very much incorrect. Pounds are now and always
have been units of mass. Yes, there is also a pound force--such a
recent invention that it is "a" pound force; of all the hundreds of
pounds used throughout history, only one has spawned a unit of force
with the same name that has seen any significant use.
>I'm willing to say that you might actually be right on this one.
>
>But when you say
> > I say.
> > Netwons, mass, and weight ARE ALL FORCES.
>you have lost it.
Agreed.
>Mass is not a force.
Agreed. That's spaceman's biggest error.
>A Kilogram is a unit of measure for mass.
That does not, however, mean that it is NOT a unit of weight.
>A Newton is a unit of measure for force.
The newton is also sometimes a unit of weight in a different
definition of weight, and the unit for other types of force that are
never called weight.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Gene Nygaard
>>> weight = mass * gravitational_acceleration
>>
>>WRONG!
>
>>weight = mass
>
> No, really. Look here in Merriam-Webster dictionary:
>
>Weight: 6b : the force with which a body is attracted toward the earth or a
>celestial body by gravitation and which is equal to the product of the mass and
>the local gravitational acceleration
You yourself looked directly at 6a in the same set of definnitions.
How can you then claim that "weight = mass" is false?
You are a liar. There is no better term for this type of deception,
when you actually looked it up and suppressed that information.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Spaceman
"Gene Nygaard" <gnyg...@nccray.com> wrote in message
news:3ce28f1c...@news.nccray.com...
> On Tue, 14 May 2002 17:27:41 GMT, "Scot McDermid"
> <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
> >news:ue1vsrp...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > I say.
> > > Netwons, mass, and weight ARE ALL FORCES.
> >you have lost it.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> >Mass is not a force.
>
> Agreed. That's spaceman's biggest error.
Than you too are lost.
for mass is THE ONLY force!
and speed increases that force.
if the mass is not there,
there is no force.
mass is THE force.
The mass is what moves,
it is the force.
the movement can't be a force alone.
Robert J. Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
>>
>
> Than you too are lost.
> for mass is THE ONLY force!
What is the mass of a mass of 1 kg being accelerated 1 meter / sec^2?
The first thing one does is check his dimensions. The dimesions of force
are mass * length / time^2, change in momentum (m*v) / time to be more
precise.
You are a dumb bot and whoever programmed you should be thoroughly
ashamed of herself.
Bob Kolker
Scot McDermid
Given that you say you are 120lbs you might be a big kid in elementary
school, or maybe a small kid in middle school or junior high.
You haven't studied physics in school yet right?
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
news:ue4mmj...@corp.supernews.com...
The table pushes up to hold the weight. If the
table doesn't push up (i.e. the table breaks) then
the weight falls down.
What happens when you pick up your 100lb
weight (or mass whatever) and drop it: it
accelerates down at 32 ft/s^2 or 9.8 m/s^2.
Put a spring scale on top of a table.
Put your 100lb weight on top of the scale.
Does your weight accelerate down? NO.
The scale holds it up. But the 100lb pound
weight compresses the spring, and causes
the weight indicator to turn. There is 100lbs
force of compression held by the spring.
Does the spring scale accelerate down? NO.
The table holds it up. There is 100lbs
force of compression held by the table.
Does the table accelerate down? NO.
The floor holds it up. There is 100lbs
force of compression held by the floor.
So... getting back to by "bad math"
f = mA
Net force on the 100lbs
f = 100lbs gravity pulling down - 100 lbs force exerted by the
table to hold it up
f = 100 - 100
f = 0
A = f/m
= 0/100lbs.mass
= 0
Net force is 0. Acceleration is 0. And lo and behold, the 100lbs
isn't accelerating.
================================================
Two quotes for you:
1/ (bumper sticker) "Hire a teenager while they still know everything!"
2/ (Mark Twain) "When I was 17 my father was so stupid that I couldn't
even stand to be in the same room with him. But at 22 I was surprised
by how much the old boy had learned in just 5 years."
Spaceman
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CE27E1...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Spaceman wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > Than you too are lost.
> > for mass is THE ONLY force!
>
>
> What is the mass of a mass of 1 kg being accelerated 1 meter / sec^2?
the mass is 1kg still,
the force it hits something with will be higher
from it's motion.
> The first thing one does is check his dimensions. The dimesions of force
> are mass * length / time^2, change in momentum (m*v) / time to be more
> precise.
so what.
I only said mass is a force.
I am not wrong and it's really sad you all twist so much to
try and make that statement wrong.
> You are a dumb bot and whoever programmed you should be thoroughly
> ashamed of herself.
More great insultation physics from the time travelers.
..
Grow Up.
Spaceman
"Scot McDermid" <sco...@SAVEattTHEbi.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> I see the problem: you are a kid. You don't know anything about physics.
> Given that you say you are 120lbs you might be a big kid in elementary
> school, or maybe a small kid in middle school or junior high.
> You haven't studied physics in school yet right?
and yet even more insultation physics instead of
REAL physics.
get lost Scott.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Gene Nygaard" <gnyg...@nccray.com> wrote in message news:3ce29036...@news.nccray.com...
Why are you ranting about 6a?
I picked the physics definition, because this is a physics group.
I was not proving anything to Spacenut, I was showing the
definitions. Not that it matters because he's too much of a
conehead to understand anything at all.
Why are you not whining about 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, ... 11?
Webster:
Main Entry: 1weight
Pronunciation: 'wAt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wight, weght, from Old English
wiht; akin to Old Norse vætt weight, Old English wegan to weigh
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the amount that a thing weighs b (1) : the standard or
established amount that a thing should weigh (2) : one of the
classes into which contestants in a sports event are divided
according to body weight (3) : poundage required to be
carried by a horse in a handicap race
2 a : a quantity or thing weighing a fixed and usually specified
amount b : a heavy object (as a metal ball) thrown, put, or
lifted as an athletic exercise or contest
3 a : a unit of weight or mass -- see METRIC SYSTEM table
b : a piece of material (as metal) of known specified weight for
use in weighing articles c : a system of related units of weight
4 a : something heavy : LOAD b : a heavy object to hold or
press something down or to counterbalance
5 a : BURDEN, PRESSURE b : the quality or state of being
ponderous c : CORPULENCE
6 a : relative heaviness : MASS b : the force with which a body
is attracted toward the earth or a celestial body by gravitation
and which is equal to the product of the mass and the local
gravitational acceleration
7 a : the relative importance or authority accorded something
b : measurable influence especially on others
8 : overpowering force
9 : the quality (as lightness) that makes a fabric or garment
suitable for a particular use or season -- often used in
combination <summer-weight>
10 : a numerical coefficient assigned to an item to express its
relative importance in a frequency distribution
11 : the degree of thickness of the strokes of a type character
synonym see IMPORTANCE, INFLUENCE
[weight table]
Dirk Vdm