"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>...

[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".

"*" <*@*.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.

"*" <*@*.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_.

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

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