Discussion:
Measures of force, weight and inertness
(too old to reply)
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?
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
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
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
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.
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].
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.
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
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/
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
Gene Nygaard
2003-09-15 19:19:09 UTC
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:56:21 GMT, Bill Vajk
Post by Bill Vajk
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
Like I though, just a wise ass who doesn't know what he's talking
about, with nothing to contribute to the thread. I still don't know
what a Schwartzism is. Do you think that changing the subject header
is going to find somebody else who can explain what you mean? Or is
it just a convience to help everybody block out your incomprehensible
babble as well as anybody foolish enough to respond to you?

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Gentlemen of the jury, Chicolini here may look like an idiot,
and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: He
really is an idiot.
Groucho Marx
Bill Vajk
2003-09-15 22:02:29 UTC
Post by Gene Nygaard
Like I though, just a wise ass who doesn't know what he's talking
about, with nothing to contribute to the thread. I still don't know
what a Schwartzism is. Do you think that changing the subject header
is going to find somebody else who can explain what you mean? Or is
it just a convience to help everybody block out your incomprehensible
babble as well as anybody foolish enough to respond to you?
Sometimes the best approach is to let someone wriggle in
their own ignorance. That's what I'll do this time as
I think you're deserving.
Gene Nygaard
2003-09-15 23:00:30 UTC
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:02:29 GMT, Bill Vajk
Post by Bill Vajk
Post by Gene Nygaard
Like I though, just a wise ass who doesn't know what he's talking
about, with nothing to contribute to the thread. I still don't know
what a Schwartzism is. Do you think that changing the subject header
is going to find somebody else who can explain what you mean? Or is
it just a convience to help everybody block out your incomprehensible
babble as well as anybody foolish enough to respond to you?
Sometimes the best approach is to let someone wriggle in
their own ignorance. That's what I'll do this time as
I think you're deserving.
You won't see any wriggling on this end.

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
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/
Christopher
2003-09-16 10:06:38 UTC
Post by Gene Nygaard
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.
Lets see you join a newsgroup or its thread and immediately become
aquainted with who's who. PLONK.
Post by Gene Nygaard
One and the same, Donald Shead is the self styled "bridge engineer"
who started this thread, an old fart
You'll be an 'old fart' to one day.
Post by Gene Nygaard
who dropped out of grade school
more than 60 years ago.
So. I left high school 31 one years ago.
Post by Gene Nygaard
He's the one described above as a "man on a
personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics."
And he's as entitled to his views as you are to yours. If you don't
like his posts don't read them. Simple.
Post by Gene Nygaard
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/
Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill
Gene Nygaard
2003-09-16 12:34:55 UTC
Post by Christopher
Post by Gene Nygaard
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.
Lets see you join a newsgroup or its thread and immediately become
aquainted with who's who. PLONK.
Post by Gene Nygaard
One and the same, Donald Shead is the self styled "bridge engineer"
who started this thread, an old fart
You'll be an 'old fart' to one day.
Old isn't Dense Donny's problems. I'll bet he was just as dumb before
he dropped out of grade school, and a nightmare for his teachers.
Post by Christopher
Post by Gene Nygaard
who dropped out of grade school
more than 60 years ago.
So. I left high school 31 one years ago.
It's starting to look like that's the only area where you've got Dense
Donny beaten, having made it into high school.
Post by Christopher
Post by Gene Nygaard
He's the one described above as a "man on a
personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics."
And he's as entitled to his views as you are to yours. If you don't
like his posts don't read them. Simple.
Grow up.

He's entitled to his opinions. He isn't entitled to respect. He
needs to earn that (and since he hasn't done so in the past 8 years,
it's not likely he will in the few he's got left).

Furthermore, posting stuff people don't like shouldn't insulate anyone
from responses from the rest of the group taking him to task for
either the nonsense of what he says or for the way he posts it, such
as his sometimes obnoxious use of things such as the Followup-To
header to try to send any replies into oblivion.

There's no excuse for his continual bombardment with nonsense,
especially the dishonest regurgitation of claims that have been proven
false dozens (in some cases hundreds; do a Google search for Donald
Shead) of times over, and which even he knows to be false (at least in
his rare lucid moments).

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
Christopher
2003-09-16 18:59:01 UTC
Post by Gene Nygaard
Post by Christopher
Post by Gene Nygaard
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.
Lets see you join a newsgroup or its thread and immediately become
aquainted with who's who. PLONK.
Post by Gene Nygaard
One and the same, Donald Shead is the self styled "bridge engineer"
who started this thread, an old fart
You'll be an 'old fart' to one day.
Old isn't Dense Donny's problems. I'll bet he was just as dumb before
he dropped out of grade school, and a nightmare for his teachers.
Post by Christopher
Post by Gene Nygaard
who dropped out of grade school
more than 60 years ago.
So. I left high school 31 one years ago.
It's starting to look like that's the only area where you've got Dense
Donny beaten, having made it into high school.
Post by Christopher
Post by Gene Nygaard
He's the one described above as a "man on a
personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics."
And he's as entitled to his views as you are to yours. If you don't
like his posts don't read them. Simple.
Grow up.
I am.
Post by Gene Nygaard
He's entitled to his opinions. He isn't entitled to respect. He
needs to earn that (and since he hasn't done so in the past 8 years,
it's not likely he will in the few he's got left).
And yet you seem to continue to respond to him.
Post by Gene Nygaard
Furthermore, posting stuff people don't like shouldn't insulate anyone
from responses from the rest of the group taking him to task for
either the nonsense of what he says or for the way he posts it, such
as his sometimes obnoxious use of things such as the Followup-To
header to try to send any replies into oblivion.
If he was so bad the 'group' wouldn't respond. But his posts just
seem to be a red-rag-to-a-bull, and the group can't resist responding.
Post by Gene Nygaard
There's no excuse for his continual bombardment with nonsense,
especially the dishonest regurgitation of claims that have been proven
false dozens (in some cases hundreds; do a Google search for Donald
Shead) of times over, and which even he knows to be false (at least in
his rare lucid moments).
Will do tommorow.

Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

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
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
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
Richard Henry
2003-09-15 18:27:02 UTC
Post by Donald G. Shead
"Far out" Christopher(;^!
Cool.
Christopher
2003-09-16 09:58:36 UTC
Post by Richard Henry
Post by Donald G. Shead
"Far out" Christopher(;^!
Cool.
Why, is he the world's leading expert on it?

Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill
Gene Nygaard
2003-09-16 12:42:05 UTC
Post by Christopher
Post by Richard Henry
Post by Donald G. Shead
"Far out" Christopher(;^!
Cool.