Mass is neither an intrinsic property, or an element

Don1 wrote:

Why should I let go of that gravy boat as long as you cannot show me
any error? You always claim I'm getting something wrong... it's about
time you prove it!

Mass is neither an intrinsic property, or an element

Clemens W wrote:
Snip<

Hey your the guy with the list; the gravy boat is sinking: Does 1 slug
= 1 lbf sec^2/foot; or does 1 lbf = 1 slug foot/sec^2? It can't be both
ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Mass is neither an intrinsic property, or an element

"Don1" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1131637100.210386.111880@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
At last. A teensy weensy glimmer of intelligence. Don realises he is
confused.

Mass is neither an intrinsic property, or an element

In sci.math Don1 <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Why can't it be both ways?
1 slug = 1 lbf sec^2/foot
If we multiply both sides by 1 foot we get
1 slug foot = 1 lbf sec^2
If we divide both sides by sec^2 we get
1 slug foot/sec^2 = 1 lbf
Equality is symmetric, so
1 lbf = 1 slug foot/sec^2

Mass is neither an intrinsic property, or an element

Don1 claims to be an engineer.

Engineers are the only people I know of who routinely use Roman
numerals (cardinal numbers), except *they* can also use Arabic numerals
(ordinal numbers).

Don1 is evidently confused by simple fractions that would have been
obvious to the ancient Egyptians.

Mass is neither an intrinsic property, or an element

Steve Ralph wrote:

But I doubt this confusion will ever disappear. Every now and then Don
seems to make progress, but every time his Alzheimer kicks in and he's
back to square one.

Mass is neither an intrinsic property, or an element

Don, the mathematically challenged, wrote:

How convenient you deleted all the math, so you don't have to bother
with that darn formulas any more! All this stuff surely confuses you,
as you don't understand jack shit:

1 slug = 1 slug
can be replaced with
1lbf * s^2/ft = 1 lbf / (1 ft/s^2)
divide by 1 lbf
1 s^2/ft = 1 / (1 ft/s^2)
divide by 1 s^2
1 / ft = 1 / s^2 * 1 / (1 ft/s^2)
1 / ft = 1 / (1 s^2 * 1 ft/s^2)
1 / ft = 1 / ft
multiply with 1 ft
1 = 1

Now, Don, again: WHERE IS THE ERROR?

No, it ain't. Your lack of math is showing more and more.

Again, some more of that stupid math:
1 slug = 1 lbf sec^2/ft
1 lbf = 1 slug ft/sec^2
Insert second into first equation:
1 slug = (1 slug * ft/sec^2) * sec^2/ft
1 slug = 1 slug * (ft/sec^2 * sec^2/ft)
which cancels out just nicely
1 slug = 1 slug

For the last time: WHERE IS THE ERROR? PROVE ME WRONG, OR STAND
CORRECTED!

Actually, it works both ways. But your statement just makes a nice
addition to my list!

But you can learn AND understand...

I told you long ago, and I'm telling you again:

Step 1: Read math/physics book
Step 2: Learn
Step 3: Repeat until enlightenment

A. Friend

Dons' List of Logical Fallacies

Date Don Correct
10/11 Does 1 slug = 1 lbf sec^2/ft; or does 1 lbf = 1 slug ft/sec^2?
It can't be both ways.
04/11 m=w/(g/2) m=w/g
04/11 ft=s/t Ft=m*s/t
31/10 2w/g ... is the mass m=w/g
31/10 [(vt-vt)=s/t=ft v(t)-v(i)=s/t=Ft/m
04/10 ft^2/s=w/g Ft^2/2s=w/g
23/09 (vt-vi)/t^2=32'/sec^2 (vt-vi)/t=32'/sec^2
08/09 s=(g/2)t s=(g/2)t^2
05/09 (vt-vi)/t=2s/t^2=g/2 (vt-vi)/t=2s/t^2=g
27/08 ft/(vt-vi)=ft^2/s ft/(vt-vi)=ft^2/2s
23/08 a/2-16'/sec^2 g/2=16ft/sec^2
23/08 a-(vt-vi)/t a=(vt-vi)/t
12/06 g=(vt-vi)/t^2 g=(vt-vi)/t
12/06 (m)=ft/s/t m=Ft^2/2s
07/06 (m)=wa/fg m=F/a or m=w/g
28/05 1 slug = 32 ft sec^2/32 ft 1 slug = 32 lbf sec^2/32 ft
27/05 s=2(vt-vi)/t s=1/2(vt-vi)*t
21/05 1 slug = 1 lbf s^2/foot; _Not_ 1 slug = 1 lbf / (1 ft/s^2)
Don didn't even realize both equations are the same.

Mass is neither an intrinsic property, or an element

"tadchem" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:1131647083.093750.128550@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

You don't know many people, do you? The BBC has been using Roman numerals
(cardinal numbers) for as long as its inception ( an act, process, or
instance of beginning).

It is dubious (questionable or suspect as to true nature) whether Tom (or [Only registered users see links. ]) Davidson is really the son of David, although he
might be. Let's ask. Are you the son of David, thomas or tadchem or Tom?
Do you know your own name, Tom or thomas or tadchem?

Black Knight of physics, duly dubbed (to call by a distinctive title,
epithet, or nickname) by Blind Pew.

Mass is neither an intrinsic property, or an element

"Androcles" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:ChOcf.257$[Only registered users see links. ].blueyonder.co.uk...

I must admit that I do not know anybody who works for the BBC, nor do I
watch the BBC. Occasionally I see 'news' items that originate there, but
they do not have Roman numerals on/in then that I have noticed.

Are Roman numerals used there for measuring units (such as the MCF used by
chemical engineers for 'thousand cubic feet'), for recording monetary
amounts (if so, do they still pay in pounds / shillings / pence?), for
marking time (it is XVII:XXIII EST where I am at the moment), or simply for
routine counting?