(too old to reply)
Measures of force, weight and inertness
Donald G. Shead
2003-09-14 12:04:56 UTC
(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to
"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to the
acceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.

(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between
(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from accelerating
centripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] that
it causes, is a constant: m = w/g.

These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the body
that they apply to:

The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;
which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the acceleration
of free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustment
is usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero before
each use.
Titan Point
2003-09-14 18:17:26 UTC
Post by Donald G. Shead
(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to
"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to the
acceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.
(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between
(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from accelerating
centripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] that
it causes, is a constant: m = w/g.
These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the body
The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;
which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the acceleration
of free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustment
is usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero before
each use.
Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?
Ronald Stepp
2003-09-14 19:28:46 UTC
(net).. .. ..
BS Filter Activated.
tadchem
2003-09-14 22:08:33 UTC
"Titan Point" <***@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:***@myrealbox.com...

<snip>
Post by Titan Point
Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?
It would have to be *early* 17th century, as sHead rejects the late 17th
century development we call "calculus."


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Donald G. Shead
2003-09-14 23:48:09 UTC
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to
"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to the
acceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.
(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between
(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from accelerating
centripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] that
it causes, is a constant: m = w/g.
These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the body
The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;
which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the acceleration
of free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustment
is usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero before
each use.
Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?
No Titan; 17th Century Physics was discovered already, but its best ideas;
including those of Rene' Descarte's vortices, and Galileo Galilei's Rate of
free fall [s/t² = 16'/sec²] in vacuum, were never properly understood, or
properly developed and were not assimilated into mainstream physics; before
Newton got ahold of it and transformed it _his way_; with the calculus and
several other distractions, the meaning of which we're still trying to
figure out.

Anyway, I'm a simple guy with only a mechanical aptitude, and a modicum of
common sense: I see the principles of physics as the simple mechanical
working of particles and bodies of matter moving and thrusting against each
other in the vast emptyness of space. It's not nearly as complicated as
you're all making it out to be.
Robert J. Kolker
2003-09-15 00:25:34 UTC
Post by Donald G. Shead
working of particles and bodies of matter moving and thrusting against each
other in the vast emptyness of space. It's not nearly as complicated as
you're all making it out to be.
Account for the motion of a moving electron in a magnetic field, by
simple minded means. There is nothing in Newtonion, Cartesean or
Galilean mechanics that could possible have predicted Oersteads discovery.

Now do a simple minded common sense thought experiment. Take a magnetic
compass and put it near a wire aligned to it goes toward magnetic north.
Put a current through the wire. What will happen to the needle of the
compass. No cheating now. Just use common sense and good old fashioned
mechanical ability.

There is nothing in the purely mechanical physics of the 16-th, 17-th
and 18-th centuries that could have predicted the result.

Bob Kolker
Bill Vajk
2003-09-15 01:14:03 UTC
Post by Donald G. Shead
It's not nearly as complicated as
you're all making it out to be.
It is, in some limited ways, as you think, however in
other ways it is a lot more complex.
Christopher
2003-09-15 09:18:15 UTC
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:17:26 +0200, "Titan Point"
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to
"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to the
acceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.
(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between
(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from accelerating
centripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] that
it causes, is a constant: m = w/g.
These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the body
The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;
which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the acceleration
of free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustment
is usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero before
each use.
Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?
Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill
Gene Nygaard
2003-09-15 12:24:41 UTC
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:17:26 , "Titan Point"
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to
"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to the
acceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.
(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between
(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from accelerating
centripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] that
it causes, is a constant: m = w/g.
These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the body
The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;
which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the acceleration
of free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustment
is usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero before
each use.
Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?
Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.
Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably a
good thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny's
Dreamworld.

S*head wants to correct the "error" made in the introduction of the
metric system in the 1790s, by going back to the gravitational fps
system with the slug, something that wasn't invented until the 20th
century and which didn't appear in physics textbooks before 1940 (and
which has pretty much disappeared from them now).

He does this in part by pretending that pounds, which have been units
of mass since they were first used, and which are most often units of
mass today, do not exist. He instead pretends that the pound force, a
recent bastardization (done to only one of the hundreds of different
pounds used throughout history) that was never well defined before the
20th century, is the only pound that ever existed.

The sad part is that there are today many science teachers (especially
in the U.S.) who are just as stupid as Dense Donny on that last point,
and worse yet, there are now a few textbook authors who were so poorly
educated themselves that they believe the same nonsense.

Gene Nygaard
Time flies like an arrow;
fruit flies like a banana.
Donald G. Shead
2003-09-15 12:01:02 UTC
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Post by Donald G. Shead
working of particles and bodies of matter moving and thrusting against each
other in the vast emptyness of space. It's not nearly as complicated as
you're all making it out to be.
Account for the motion of a moving electron in a magnetic field, by
simple minded means. There is nothing in Newtonion, Cartesean or
Galilean mechanics that could possible have predicted Oersteads discovery.
Hans Christian Ørsted 1777-1851 Danish physicist & chemist; founded the
science of electromagnetism: Are you insinuating that it had nothing to do
with Newtonion, Cartesean or
Galilean mechanics?
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Now do a simple minded common sense thought experiment. Take a magnetic
compass and put it near a wire aligned to it goes toward magnetic north.
Put a current through the wire. What will happen to the needle of the
compass. No cheating now. Just use common sense and good old fashioned
mechanical ability.
Well you're right in one respect. Mechanical ability _is_ getting rarer and
more old fashioned. Even to me: I don't, and can't fix my car anymore; not
since about 1982, and all the sealed components - electronic and otherwise -
in various appliances have be pretty well buffaloed.

It's not what we observe about electromagnetism, or the thought experiments
that we can concoct; it's what's really going on mechanically that matters
most. Einstein got a compass as a boy, and playing around with that set off
his wild thought experiment theory about clocks receding from us at the
speed of light so that to us; they _appear_ to be stopped; while in reality
they just keep ticking along.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
There is nothing in the purely mechanical physics of the 16-th, 17-th
and 18-th centuries that could have predicted the result.
Physics wasn't _purely_ mechanical then or now, any more than it was to
Ørsted. I'm sure he didn't start from nothing: It takes more than 'simple
minded means'; but a little (God given) common sense helps a whole lot.
Post by Robert J. Kolker
Bob Kolker
Donald G. Shead
2003-09-15 12:34:48 UTC
Post by Bill Vajk
Post by Donald G. Shead
It's not nearly as complicated as
you're all making it out to be.
It is, in some limited ways, as you think, however in
other ways it is a lot more complex.
Well of course Bill, but a lot of that complexity is brought about by the
kind of people who think that complexity is better; because it requires more
brilliance.

They don't understand that the science of old - suppressed largely by "the
church" - was _in some respects_ better than some of the modern screwball
theories; [over, and by which the "church" is now being suppressed].
Donald G. Shead
2003-09-15 12:37:54 UTC
Post by Christopher
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:17:26 +0200, "Titan Point"
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to
"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to the
acceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.
(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between
(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from accelerating
centripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] that
it causes, is a constant: m = w/g.
These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the body
The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;
which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the acceleration
of free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustment
is usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero before
each use.
Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?
Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.
"Far out" Christopher(;^!
Post by Christopher
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill
Donald G. Shead
2003-09-15 13:01:14 UTC
Post by Gene Nygaard
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:17:26 , "Titan Point"
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to
"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to the
acceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.
(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between
(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from accelerating
centripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] that
it causes, is a constant: m = w/g.
These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the body
The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with
weight-scales;
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the acceleration
of free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustment
is usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero before
each use.
Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?
Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.
Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably a
good thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny's
Dreamworld.
S*head wants to correct the "error" made in the introduction of the
metric system in the 1790s, by going back to the gravitational fps
system with the slug, something that wasn't invented until the 20th
century and which didn't appear in physics textbooks before 1940 (and
which has pretty much disappeared from them now).
He does this in part by pretending that pounds, which have been units
of mass since they were first used, and which are most often units of
mass today, do not exist. He instead pretends that the pound force, a
recent bastardization (done to only one of the hundreds of different
pounds used throughout history) that was never well defined before the
20th century, is the only pound that ever existed.
The sad part is that there are today many science teachers (especially
in the U.S.) who are just as stupid as Dense Donny on that last point,
and worse yet, there are now a few textbook authors who were so poorly
educated themselves that they believe the same nonsense.
Gene Nygaard
Time flies like an arrow;
fruit flies like a banana.
B.S. filter belatedly activated(;^) You seem to know everything Gene. Except
_the important fact_ about the slug being a unit of inertia; the measure of
the matter in a body of mass, and that weight is the heaviness of matter;
which varies in proportion to the rate at which it will free fall [s/t² =
16'/sec²].
Gene Nygaard
2003-09-15 14:14:41 UTC
Post by Donald G. Shead
Post by Gene Nygaard
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:17:26 , "Titan Point"
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter
to
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to the
acceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.
(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between
(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from
accelerating
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
centripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g]
that
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
it causes, is a constant: m = w/g.
These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the
body
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with
weight-scales;
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the
acceleration
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
of free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an
adjustment
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
is usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero
before
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
each use.
Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?
Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.
Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably a
good thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny's
Dreamworld.
S*head wants to correct the "error" made in the introduction of the
metric system in the 1790s, by going back to the gravitational fps
system with the slug, something that wasn't invented until the 20th
century and which didn't appear in physics textbooks before 1940 (and
which has pretty much disappeared from them now).
He does this in part by pretending that pounds, which have been units
of mass since they were first used, and which are most often units of
mass today, do not exist. He instead pretends that the pound force, a
recent bastardization (done to only one of the hundreds of different
pounds used throughout history) that was never well defined before the
20th century, is the only pound that ever existed.
The sad part is that there are today many science teachers (especially
in the U.S.) who are just as stupid as Dense Donny on that last point,
and worse yet, there are now a few textbook authors who were so poorly
educated themselves that they believe the same nonsense.
Gene Nygaard
Time flies like an arrow;
fruit flies like a banana.
B.S. filter belatedly activated(;^) You seem to know everything Gene. Except
_the important fact_ about the slug being a unit of inertia; the measure of
the matter in a body of mass, and that weight is the heaviness of matter;
which varies in proportion to the rate at which it will free fall [s/t² =
16'/sec²].
Non sequitur.

Notice how I hit the nail on the head as far as summarizing S*head's
arguments, so he didn't even address the points I raised. The best he
can do is to throw in some irrelevant nonsense.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Bill Vajk
2003-09-15 14:33:41 UTC
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Donald G. Shead
B.S. filter belatedly activated(;^) You seem to know everything Gene. Except
_the important fact_ about the slug being a unit of inertia; the measure of
the matter in a body of mass, and that weight is the heaviness of matter;
which varies in proportion to the rate at which it will free fall [s/t² =
16'/sec²].
Non sequitur.
Notice how I hit the nail on the head as far as summarizing S*head's
arguments, so he didn't even address the points I raised. The best he
can do is to throw in some irrelevant nonsense.
What I notice is the local propensity to revert to Schwartzisms.
Gene Nygaard
2003-09-15 15:00:58 UTC
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:33:41 GMT, Bill Vajk
Post by Bill Vajk
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Donald G. Shead
B.S. filter belatedly activated(;^) You seem to know everything Gene. Except
_the important fact_ about the slug being a unit of inertia; the measure of
the matter in a body of mass, and that weight is the heaviness of matter;
which varies in proportion to the rate at which it will free fall [s/t² =
16'/sec²].
Non sequitur.
Notice how I hit the nail on the head as far as summarizing S*head's
arguments, so he didn't even address the points I raised. The best he
can do is to throw in some irrelevant nonsense.
What I notice is the local propensity to revert to Schwartzisms.
Who was Schwartz, and what is a Schwartzism? It isn't in any of the
dictionaries I have, nor any I looked at online, nor does a web search
find anything useful.

Where does this "local propensity" lie?

I think you are using words too big for your brain, Bill.

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Christopher
2003-09-15 15:32:58 UTC
Post by Gene Nygaard
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:17:26 , "Titan Point"
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to
"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to the
acceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.
(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between
(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from accelerating
centripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] that
it causes, is a constant: m = w/g.
These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the body
The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;
which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the acceleration
of free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustment
is usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero before
each use.
Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?
Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.
Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably a
good thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny's
Dreamworld.
Who is 'Shead' and who the fuck is 'Dense Donny'? Without the
physicists of the 17th > 18th... centuries the physicists of this 21st
century wouldn't have been able to do the work they do, i.e. the
physicists of the past lay down the foundations of future work.
Post by Gene Nygaard
S*head wants to correct the "error" made in the introduction of the
metric system in the 1790s, by going back to the gravitational fps
system with the slug, something that wasn't invented until the 20th
century and which didn't appear in physics textbooks before 1940 (and
which has pretty much disappeared from them now).
He does this in part by pretending that pounds, which have been units
of mass since they were first used, and which are most often units of
mass today, do not exist. He instead pretends that the pound force, a
recent bastardization (done to only one of the hundreds of different
pounds used throughout history) that was never well defined before the
20th century, is the only pound that ever existed.
The sad part is that there are today many science teachers (especially
in the U.S.) who are just as stupid as Dense Donny on that last point,
and worse yet, there are now a few textbook authors who were so poorly
educated themselves that they believe the same nonsense.
Gene Nygaard
Time flies like an arrow;
fruit flies like a banana.
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill
Christopher
2003-09-15 15:34:36 UTC
Post by Donald G. Shead
Post by Christopher
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:17:26 +0200, "Titan Point"
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter
to
Post by Christopher
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to the
acceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.
(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between
(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from
accelerating
Post by Christopher
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
centripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g]
that
Post by Christopher
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
it causes, is a constant: m = w/g.
These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the
body
Post by Christopher
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;
which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the
acceleration
Post by Christopher
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
of free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an
adjustment
Post by Christopher
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
is usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero
before
Post by Christopher
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
each use.
Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?
Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.
"Far out" Christopher(;^!
Cool.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill
Gene Nygaard
2003-09-15 15:37:37 UTC
Post by Christopher
Post by Gene Nygaard
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 20:17:26 , "Titan Point"
Post by Titan Point
Post by Donald G. Shead
(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to
"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to the
acceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.
(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between
(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from accelerating
centripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] that
it causes, is a constant: m = w/g.
These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the body
The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;
which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the acceleration
of free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustment
is usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero before
each use.
Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?
Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.
Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably a
good thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny's
Dreamworld.
Who is 'Shead' and who the fuck is 'Dense Donny'? Without the
It doesn't cost you any more to pay attention.

One and the same, Donald Shead is the self styled "bridge engineer"
who started this thread, an old fart who dropped out of grade school
more than 60 years ago. He's the one described above as a "man on a
personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics."
Post by Christopher
physicists of the 17th > 18th... centuries the physicists of this 21st
century wouldn't have been able to do the work they do, i.e. the
physicists of the past lay down the foundations of future work.
Post by Gene Nygaard
S*head wants to correct the "error" made in the introduction of the
metric system in the 1790s, by going back to the gravitational fps
system with the slug, something that wasn't invented until the 20th
century and which didn't appear in physics textbooks before 1940 (and
which has pretty much disappeared from them now).
He does this in part by pretending that pounds, which have been units
of mass since they were first used, and which are most often units of
mass today, do not exist. He instead pretends that the pound force, a
recent bastardization (done to only one of the hundreds of different
pounds used throughout history) that was never well defined before the
20th century, is the only pound that ever existed.
The sad part is that there are today many science teachers (especially
in the U.S.) who are just as stupid as Dense Donny on that last point,
and worse yet, there are now a few textbook authors who were so poorly
educated themselves that they believe the same nonsense.
Gene Nygaard
Time flies like an arrow;
fruit flies like a banana.
Christopher
?????????
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Bill Vajk
2003-09-15 15:56:21 UTC
Post by Gene Nygaard
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:33:41 GMT, Bill Vajk
Post by Bill Vajk
Post by Gene Nygaard
Notice how I hit the nail on the head as far as summarizing S*head's
arguments, so he didn't even address the points I raised. The best he
can do is to throw in some irrelevant nonsense.
What I notice is the local propensity to revert to Schwartzisms.
Who was Schwartz, and what is a Schwartzism? It isn't in any of the
dictionaries I have, nor any I looked at online, nor does a web search
find anything useful.
Where does this "local propensity" lie?
I think you are using words too big for your brain, Bill.
There you go again....... LOL

Next Page >
Page 1 of 2