Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet

Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet - Physics Forum

Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-10-2004, 07:58 PM
The Boerg
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet


"Jose Carlos Santos" <[Only registered users see links. ].pt> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ] m...
news:<48402bae.0406100255.19bf660d@posting.google. com>...


It sounds more like a history question to me.


Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-10-2004, 09:28 PM
*
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet

google it dude.

You have a current Troll ranking of 9.5 out of 10.
Therefore the flames, and loss of productive time.

Please posting all your future posts to alt.avoirdupois.napoleon.ice-cream
or to alt.physics.mass.isfake.really

Remember, there is mass but no weight in a weightless environment like outer
space.

"Donald G. Shead" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:48402bae.0406100255.19bf660d@posting.google.c om...


Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-10-2004, 09:40 PM
Pyriform
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet

Donald G. Shead wrote:

I am not surprised that proving the existence of a newsgroup is beyond
your grasp.



Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-11-2004, 07:38 AM
Jose Carlos Santos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet

[Only registered users see links. ] (Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0406101119.7f0bacd1@posting.google. com>...


Sure, every mathematician believes that mathematics is crucial to
physics. That does not change the fact that your post was meant
to be read by "real physicists" and that therefore it should have
been posted at physics newsgroups only. Besides, nowadays computers
are crucial to phisics, but you're not posting at newsgroups newsgroups.
Why is that?


You have obviously never even tried to see how much traffic we get here
every day. That says a lot about how good you are at "seeking the truth".

Best regards,

Jose Carlos Santos
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-11-2004, 11:14 AM
Donald G. Shead
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet

"*" <*@*.com> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...
You don't have any idea of what weight is do you?

Weight is the mutual force exerted between planets - like Earth, mars,
and our moon - and objects, bodies and masses "resting" thereon. There
is no weight exerted between Earth and the moon; in fact there's no
scale strong enough to measure the weight of the moon, even if we
could get it down here to rest on Earth's terra firma.

We don't have to go into outer space to find "weightless
environments"; they are all around us; once we get beyond the
atmosphere. Any satelite is "weightless" because its orbit is such
that it's fleeing from Earth's center at the same rate as it is
gravitating toward it.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-15-2004, 10:06 AM
Saverio Trioni
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet

The Boerg wrote:


Also, you should notice the newsgroup you're posting in, this thread
belongs to:

1) sci.math (which you maybe think it's the only real world)
2) sci.physics
3) alt.sci.physics

You cannot say the last two aren't *physics* newsgroups

=====> read the little black sign on your computer screen, maybe they
have some sense!!!!!!!!! <=======


bye

saverio
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-15-2004, 10:41 PM
Donald G. Shead
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet

"*" <*@*.com> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...
What do you mean by a weightless environment? You do know that weight
is a force don't you. Are you claiming that there are forceless
environments?

Even outer space is not a a forceless environment, and for any given
object; body, or mass, the ratio of force [f] divided by the
acceleration [a] _there_, is equal to the ratio of weight [w] divided
by the acceleration of freefall [g = 32'/sec^2] _here_.

Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-30-2007, 05:14 PM
mikewofsey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet



I'm glad that Donald asked this question.

Yes, it is a history question, but it is also a current question
Physics is built using the concept of measurement. So any questio
about the measuring system we use is necessary and applicable.

Measurement is so closely related to what physics is, that it eve
defines what we term "physical." For instance, I could easily find th
theoretical DeBroglie wavelength of a basketball as it leaves Alle
Iverson's hands to score the game-winning basket (sorry, I'm a hug
Denver Nuggets fan). BUT that wavelength is so small -- many orders o
magnitudes smaller than the diameter of the nucleus of an atom -- tha
we then take a step back and say "hold up .... if this wavelength is s
small that we can have no hope of ever possibly measuring it, tha
perhaps this basketball does NOT HAVE a DeBroglie wavelength!"

And then we leave it at that, lock the office and pick the kids up fro
school. YES the basketball has a numerical, Theoretical DeBrogli
wavelength, but since we cannot ever hope to measure it, we can just a
confidently say that it does not have one at all. Or in the words o
Robert Metzger, Quantum Chemist ... "if you can't measure it, it'
bull****."

So yes, the measuring system we use is critically important, and eve
the most abstract String Theorist would agree (I know because I aske
one.)

Now, can we modulate our measuring system to give us higher precision
Why not? Can we modulate our numbering system to give us highe
precision? Again, why not? I could even create a numbering system wher
pi is rational! Of course no other number would be rational, but under
base-pi system, pi would in fact, be equal to unity, and 1 would be a
irrational number.

Theorists are quite comfortable with this even if people like me ar
not due to my somewhat more limited mental abilities. They swap gauge
at the tiniest whim, anything to simplify the problem.

I feel bad that Donald has received a lot of flack from his questions
because this particular question is EXACTLY to type of question w
should all be asking


--
mikewofsey
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-30-2007, 05:14 PM
mikewofsey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is the newton a unit of avoirdupois yet



I'm glad that Donald asked this question.

Yes, it is a history question, but it is also a current question
Physics is built using the concept of measurement. So any questio
about the measuring system we use is necessary and applicable.

Measurement is so closely related to what physics is, that it eve
defines what we term "physical." For instance, I could easily find th
theoretical DeBroglie wavelength of a basketball as it leaves Alle
Iverson's hands to score the game-winning basket (sorry, I'm a hug
Denver Nuggets fan). BUT that wavelength is so small -- many orders o
magnitudes smaller than the diameter of the nucleus of an atom -- tha
we then take a step back and say "hold up .... if this wavelength is s
small that we can have no hope of ever possibly measuring it, tha
perhaps this basketball does NOT HAVE a DeBroglie wavelength!"

And then we leave it at that, lock the office and pick the kids up fro
school. YES the basketball has a numerical, Theoretical DeBrogli
wavelength, but since we cannot ever hope to measure it, we can just a
confidently say that it does not have one at all. Or in the words o
Robert Metzger, Quantum Chemist ... "if you can't measure it, it'
bull****."

So yes, the measuring system we use is critically important, and eve
the most abstract String Theorist would agree (I know because I aske
one.)

Now, can we modulate our measuring system to give us higher precision
Why not? Can we modulate our numbering system to give us highe
precision? Again, why not? I could even create a numbering system wher
pi is rational! Of course no other number would be rational, but under
base-pi system, pi would in fact, be equal to unity, and 1 would be a
irrational number.

Theorists are quite comfortable with this even if people like me ar
not due to my somewhat more limited mental abilities. They swap gauge
at the tiniest whim, anything to simplify the problem.

I feel bad that Donald has received a lot of flack from his questions
because this particular question is EXACTLY to type of question w
should all be asking


--
mikewofsey
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
avoirdupois , newton , unit


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Microbial Lab Closed- Over 500 lots available IET Ltd Microbiology Forum 0 11-26-2008 09:05 PM
GNU units and units.dat; Units of Measurement and Unit Conversion James Redford Physics Forum 0 07-31-2005 12:08 PM
Velocity is the frequency of unit displacement. hemetis@gmail.com Physics Forum 16 06-16-2005 03:46 PM
The newton is the metric unit of force Don1 Physics Forum 45 05-23-2005 10:19 PM
Nobel Prize for David Thomson?! caltechdude Physics Forum 428 01-21-2005 10:39 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.21749 seconds with 16 queries