Prev: Can Space be created within space?
Next: johnreed to PD on Roemer
From: glird on 6 Aug 2010 10:43
On Aug 3, 4:29 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 10:17 am, glird wrote:
> ...
>>< My point is this:  BECAUSE a gram (or kilogram or ounce or pound) is THE WRONG UNIT for a quantity of matter, physicists are conphused into thinking that e = mc^2 means that MATTER is converted into the ability to do work.
When they understand that the m in that equation represents grams of
WEIGHT, perhaps they might begin to understand the underlying
metaphysics of their own equations. Until that happens, physics will
remain all phucked up. >
>
>< Lest anyone think this particular babbling brook is transporting some sort of gold dust, pressure has units of mass/((time^2)*length), and weight have units of mass*length/(time^2).
This person is proposing reconfiguring all the equations of physics
to redefine the three basic quantities of mass, length, and time into
either pressure or force, length, and time. >

Wrong! This person is proposing that the unit of MASS be changed
from a gram to a densum, because the m (in grams) in most of the
equations of physics denote the WEIGHT of a mass. So what? So if the
weight of a mass (quantity of matter) of 10 densa in a g-field is
zero, instead of its mass being zero it would remain 10 densum. SO
WHAT?


> If you are interested in knowing more about this subject, I recommend:http://en.wikipedia.org
From: Dono. on 6 Aug 2010 10:46
On Aug 6, 7:43 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> When they understand that the m in that equation represents grams of
> WEIGHT,


Lebau, you aren't just any kind of imbecile, you are a PERSISTENT kind
of imbecile.



From: harald on 6 Aug 2010 11:52
On Aug 6, 4:43 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 4:29 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:> On Aug 2, 10:17 am, glird

> This person is proposing that the unit of MASS be changed
> from a gram to a densum, because the m (in grams) in most of the
> equations of physics denote the WEIGHT of a mass.

No. Mostly used by physicists is the SI or "metric" system:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

Another, related system is cgs:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/cgs.html

Note in particular this precision:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/kilogram.html

In other words, the confusion that you relate to has been dealt with
(among physicists) one century ago.

Harald
From: Darwin123 on 6 Aug 2010 11:57
On Aug 6, 11:52 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 4:43 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 4:29 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:> On Aug 2, 10:17 am, glird

> Note in particular this precision:http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/kilogram.html
>
> In other words, the confusion that you relate to has been dealt with
> (among physicists) one century ago.
>
> Harald

Or earlier.
From: Hikaru Yamoshi on 8 Aug 2010 15:17
On Aug 1, 9:44 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear glird:
>
> On Aug 1, 10:12 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Since a force is a net pressure,
>
> No, pressure is a force distributed over an area.

not true, how would you measure a larger
pressure on a area with a smaller probe?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Can Space be created within space?
Next: johnreed to PD on Roemer