Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
> 
> 
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ernest Schaal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in article apjb111jq9usblq1742go3h6duj9ihfj19@4ax.com, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Cash at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mikecash@buggerallspammers.com wrote on 2/18/05 8:20 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:11:53 +0900, Ernest Schaal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> brought down from the Mount 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tablets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inscribed:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frankly, when I read your message about why you stay 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Japan, I felt sorry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you. Stasis is not a fun reason to stay here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant it as an answer as to why Rev. Ed is still here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But when you come right down to it, being settled in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any location
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involves stasis. So what does it matter whether stasis 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has overtaken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me here or elsewhere? I'm just as content right where 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am right now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as I imagine I would be anywhere else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry if I read too much into your answer. Stasis 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involves conflicting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forces, and I took it to mean that you were caught in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the middle of those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflicting forces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are in stasis most of the time. As you sit in your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chair, it is pushing up against you with the exact same 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> force with which gravity pulls you down.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you a good or even moderately competent lawyer? I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly hope so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry that I can't write a longer reply, but my chair is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing up against me with a force greater than that of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gravity's pull upon me, so I am slowly drifting away from 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my keyboard into the strato.......
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'M SHOUTING SO YOU CAN HEAR ME.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AS THE CHAIR WAS PUSHING WITH A FORCE THEN IT HAS PROBABLY 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOW EXPLODED. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the chair is remarkably intact and continues to push up 
>>>>>>>>>>>> against me with a force that is a function of my mass times 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the acceleration of gravity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you measure this "force" with a forcographer?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what a "forcographer" is,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you know it as a forcometer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or a forcemeter, yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but this force could be measured with a bathroom scale that 
>>>>>>>>>> can be purchased in any number of retail outlets. Such devices 
>>>>>>>>>> measure forces, you see.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no, that would measure the force exerted by you, not the chair.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it would. The chair and I are exerting the same magnitude 
>>>>>>>> of force in opposite directions. The scale would be useless if 
>>>>>>>> this were not the case. When you step on a scale, it can only 
>>>>>>>> tell you your weight if it has a floor to push against. If you 
>>>>>>>> wish to verify this empirically, jump out of a tall window while 
>>>>>>>> standing on a scale. While I hate to ruin the experiment, the 
>>>>>>>> scale will register no weight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I sit in this chair, I am at rest. This fact means that the 
>>>>>>>> net force acting upon me is zero. This means one of two things:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. No forces are acting upon me.
>>>>>>>> 2. For every force acting upon me, there is an equal and 
>>>>>>>> opposite force.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since even you woufld admit that gravity exerts a force upon me, 
>>>>>>>> choice #1 is clearly not true. Therefore, it must be that the 
>>>>>>>> chair is pushing on me with a force equal and opposite to that 
>>>>>>>> of gravity. Some people like to call this "Newton's Third Law of 
>>>>>>>> Motion".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most high school physics texts cover Newton's laws in the first 
>>>>>>>> chapter. You may wish to pick one up. Or, you could just do some 
>>>>>>>> Googling.
>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/4foqu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **high school physics texts**. Well there is the problem. Both 
>>>>>>> you and the earth are attracting each other. The chair just 
>>>>>>> happens to have gotten in the way. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means that the chair is exerting a force. This is why chairs 
>>>>>> are useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PWNT!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But you can't measure this force.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As I have already explained, you can.
>>>>
>>>>> Mr Newton, I would like to introduce you to Mr Einstein.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Er, ok. You're not one of those types that think Newtonian mechanics 
>>>> is "old-fashioned" and out-of-date, are you? 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes and no. I do know how to correctly identify a mechanical physics 
>>> problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> You've done a very good job of keeping that secret.
>>
>>>  > It's a common affliction of Star Trek fans.
>>>
>>> Whereas Star Wars fans have it all sorted? Fine, I am neither a Star 
>>> Trek fan nor a Star Wars fan. I did see one Star Trek movie in a 
>>> cinema but I laughed at the wrong times, much like my reaction to 
>>> Star Wars.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it's just that Star Trek tries to explain how its tech works, and 
>> throws about "quantum" every other sentence.
>>
>>>>> Let's do an experiment. You are sitting on your chair. It's a 5 
>>>>> legged rotating one, no arms and no fancy gas cushioning. You are 
>>>>> pressing down with 100kg. You see your "sports" bag (weighing 
>>>>> 100kg) on the ground and remember there is a Hershey bar in it. You 
>>>>> pick it up and momentarily there is 400kg pushing downo on the 
>>>>> chair (you + the bag + the acceleration of lifting the bag) [ignore 
>>>>> the massive fart you let rip - too hard to measure]. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know where 200 kg of mass magically appeared from. Your 
>>>> experiment has violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, thereby 
>>>> shaking the very foundation of physics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice try but I didn't say "200kg of mass". 
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but it would have been better if you did.
> 
> 
> No. It's 200kg of force not mass. 

Why do you insist on using kilograms as units of mass?

> This force comes from accleration. 
> Newton's First?  F=ma.

Yes, in which m is mass in kilograms and F is force in newtons.

>>> In fact I clearly refered to "the acceleration of lifting the bag". 
>>> The bathroom scales you suggested to use would measure this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, acceleration is not measured in kilograms.
> 
> 
> Which is why I said "acceleration of lifting the bag". F=ma. Or as I 
> wrote it F=am. Due to the associative nature of multiplication ma=am.

Saying "The acceleration of lifting the bag is 200 kg" makes the 
proposition no less asinine.

>> The scale displays kilgrams because it divides the force measured by 
>> the acceleration of gravity. This is done through Newton's Second Law.
>>
> 
> So if we took it to Mars it would work?

Sure, so long as the scale was calibrated so that is assumed g=3.71 
m/s^2 instead of g=9.8 m/s^2

>>>>> You put the bag on your lap. There is now 200kg pushing down. The 
>>>>> phone rings and you rotate in your chair and the bag falls off. 
>>>>> There is now 100kg pushing down on the chair. Why aren't you 
>>>>> ejected into space when you drop the bag? Surely the chair was 
>>>>> pushing up with 200kg.So this magic chair has pushed up with 100kg, 
>>>>> rising to 400kg then 200kg, then suddenly back down to 100kg. 
>>>>> Suddenly the chair gives way and collapses. You are now sitting on 
>>>>> a pile of cloth,plastic and metal - but this magic chair is still 
>>>>> pushing up with 100kg of force. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A kilogram is not a unit of force; it is a unit of mass. I believe 
>>>> the term you want is "newton". I could understand your hypothetical 
>>>> better if you did not insist on using units of mass as if they were 
>>>> units of force.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If that is the case, why did you suggest using a spring based device 
>>> to measure the downward force 
>>
>>
>>
>> Because I have heard of Hooke's Law.
>>
> 
> But not the gravitional constant apparently.



>>> when the correct way to measure force is it's effect on moving *a* 
>>> body of mass?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's "effect"? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. Who 
>> says that a mass acted upon by a force must be in motion? Push against 
>> a building as hard as you can. The building does not move, but you are 
>> still exerting a force upon it.
> 
> 
> F=ma
> 
> (I've highlighted the definite article to draw attention to your 
> misreading)

"A" is the indefinite article, but I digress. F=ma does not mean that an 
object with a force must be in motion.

>> A similar example is one that might finally educate you. Two men of 
>> equal strength play a match of tug-of-war. The rope's midpoint doesn't 
>> move, but the two men are exerting forces. Equal and opposite forces.
>>
> 
> Very good, the opposite of my example of Yumiko Shaku and me. But by 
> your chair reasoning (now called Gowen's Postulate) you'd say the rope 
> is pulling them together and the rope is providing exactly the right 
> amount of pull. 

No. One man is gravity pulling down, while the other is the chair 
pushing up.

> In fact you could use a spring measuring device and 
> Hooke's Law to calculate this pulling force.

Yes, much like a spring-based scale measures weight based on a 
compression force.

>>> Regardless, kilograms and pounds are used to measure force (eg the 
>>> Pratt and Whitney F100s produce 25,000 pounds of thrust). 
>>
>>
>>
>> Gee, how many kilograms of thrust would that be? 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but we stopped using Imperial measurements last century. I do 
> know that the answer would be tons not kilograms.

I had no idea that the kilogram was an Imperial unit.

>> But, here's a good question for you (with round numbers for 
>> simplicity): A Pratt F100 is traveling at a constant velocity of 200 
>> m/s as its engines produce 25,000 pounds of thrust. What is the force 
>> of aerodynamic drag on the jet?
>>
>> If a kilogram is used as a unit of force, that is nonsensical, and 
>> would render Newton's Second Law useless. The folks at BIMP seem to 
>> agree:
>> http://www1.bipm.org/fr/si/base_units/
>> http://www1.bipm.org/fr/si/derived_units/2-2-2.html
>>
> 
> Don't tell them that Dassault quote their aircraft thrust in (metric) 
> tons. The French hissy fit would be funny. The European Space Agency 
> can't make up it's mind if it's rockets produce newtons or tons of thrust.

Don't forget to answer my problem about the Pratt. You won't even need a 
calculator.

>>> Or  are you planning on leaving the surface of the earth to perform 
>>> your experiments elsewhere? That would be interesting because then we 
>>> would have to simulate gravity using a large rubber band wrapped 
>>> around you and the chair. Is the chair now pushing up (towards you)?
>>
>>
>>
>> With the same force I am pushing "down" on it (although "up" and 
>> "down" are meaningless in free fall).
>>
>>>>> How does this magic chair keep pushing up with the exact amount of 
>>>>> force required?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Newton's Third Law. It's the same thing that makes rockets work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So why didn't you blast off when the extra weight was removed from 
>>> the chair? 
>>
>>
>>
>> Newton's Third Law.
> 
> 
> Just like rockets?

Sure.

>>> Where did all that extra *force* from the chair go?
>>
>>
>>
>> I knew that Newton's Third Law was poorly understood, but this is 
>> ridiculous. There was no "extra" force.
> 
> 
> At one point there was 200kg or if you prefer 400N (round figures) of 
> upward pressure. 

400N from 200kg sitting on a chair? What planet is this? Certainly not 
Earth.

> Then suddenly there was only 100N. You have Newton back 
> to front. You think that because something is at rest all forces acting 
> on it must be equal and opposite so you have to invent fictious forces 
> to satisfy your model of what is happening. 

Actually, there is such a thing as a fictious force, but not in my 
hypothetical. A person sitting in a chair is subject to two equal and 
opposite forces: gravity's downward pull and the chair's upward push.

> What you fail to realise is 
> that gravity acts like a rubber band between the centers of mass of the 
> two objects, you and the earth. The chair is completely irrelevant, it 
> is experiencing force but it is not generating any.

I see, it is "experiencing" force (whatever that means). If the chair is 
exerting no force, what keeps me from falling?

>>> Now let's use the bathroom scales again as they are a useful tool for 
>>> measuring force on earth.  We can calculate your mass using other 
>>> techniques so we can accept (for this hypothetical) that you weigh 
>>> 100kg. We place the scales under you to measure the force of your 
>>> mass pushing down and we know it is 100kg. But if the chair was 
>>> pushing up with 100kg then it should measure 200kg? 
>>
>>
>>
>> You ask a question like that, and you broadcast that you don't know 
>> what a vector is.
> 
> 
> I know what a vector is, I just refuse to invent a fictious one to 
> satisify the inappropriate use on Newton.

I see. You don't.

>> Why do you insist on using a kilogram as unit of force? But that is 
>> besides the point.
> 
> 
> OK Kilopond if you prefer, although it's a digusting word. Can we agree 
> on kilogram-force.

Flip-flop! But, yes.

>> If my mass is 100kg, then I am pushing down on the scale with 980 
>> newtons.
> 
>  At the same time, the scale is pushing up on me with -980
> 
>> newtons. Thus, the net force acting upon me is zero. That is why I am 
>> at rest. If the chair/floor/whatever were not exerting a force 
>> opposite in direction to that of gravity, I would be in free fall...
> 
> 
> through the chair?

Or through anything. If nothing is exerting a force opposite to that a 
gravity, why aren't I in free fall?

>>> Now let's put another set of bathroom scales under the chair. It is 
>>> showing 110kg (the chair and other scales are 10kg). So the chair is 
>>> pushing up with 100kg to balance you and down with 110kg. This chair 
>>> is pushing both up and down. 
>>
>>
>>
>> The chair has always been pushing both up and down.
> 
> 
> it's magic (still laughing)

Carry on.

>>> How does that work? Oh yes Newtons 3rd. Sorry, unlike in law you have 
>>> to describe what is happening, not just act and section.
>>
>>
>>
>> It works quite simply.
>>
>> The scale between me and the chair registers 980 newtons as always. 
>> Gravity pulls down my mass with a force of 980 newtons, and it pushes 
>> up with -980 newtons, for a net force of zero.
>>
>> The scale between the floor and me, the chair, and the scale registers 
>> 1078 newtons. This is because the sum of the mass resting upon it (me, 
>> chair, and first scale) is 110 kilograms. At the same time, the floor 
>> pushes upon the scale with -1078 newtons, giving a net force of zero.
>>
>>> Quite simply, it is the earth pushing "up" not the chair or more 
>>> accurately like Yumiko and me,mutal attraction. 
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it's really the chair, or balcony, or whatever you happening to be 
>> sitting or standing upon that pushes up on you. The fact that the 
>> earth's mass is the source of the acceleration of gravity does not 
>> mean that the earth is pushing up against you.
> 
> 
> Even Newton (RIP) understood that it is the earth and you attracting 
> each other.

And he understood that the chair pushes up with a force equal and 
opposite to that of gravity.

>>> You can actually find this in Newton if you look closely but until 
>>> Einstein, people just sort of ignored it. Newton, himself, regardless 
>>> of falling apples, was not comfortable with gravity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Comfort is irrelevant. The purpose of science is to describe the 
>> universe, not to make scientists comfortable.
> 
> 
> au contraire. These discomforts are what lead Einstein to revist Newton, 
> and more recently, scientists to revist Einstein.

I have no idea what "revist" is, but the purpose of science is to 
describe the universe, not to make people comfortable.

>>>>> It's simple but you have to realise most of what you were taught at 
>>>>> highschool was wrong. First year university physics is mostly 
>>>>> relearning what you were taught at school.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I took college physics in high school by taking what is known as an 
>>>> "AP" class. I passed the exam at year's end and entered college with 
>>>> physics credit. Even in non-AP high school physics, I am pretty sure 
>>>> they teach SI units.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What has SI got to do with it? 
>>
>>
>>
>> See above links. A kilogram is a unit of mass, not force.
>>
>>> It's my understanding that 1st university in America is eqivalent to 
>>> Year 12 of school (final year of highschool) in Australia.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but it is also your understanding that a kilogram is a unit of 
>> force.
> 
> 
> I never said that. 

Sure, like when you said gems likes "the chair was pushing up with 200kg".

> I am using kilograms to express force just like 
> Dassault Mirage does. That is not the same as saying that kilograms are 
> a unit of force. 

I see. You were using kilograms to express force, but not as units of 
force. I got it.

> Fortunately we have a constant which relates the two. 
> It's called g and it's value is 1.

Actually, the value of g is 9.8 m/s^2.

>>>> Why did you mention Einstein when relativistic physics had nothing 
>>>> to do with your hypothetical? Was I traveling at 87% the speed of 
>>>> light?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't mention relativistic physics at all. Einstein was 
>>> responsible for far more than relativistic physics.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but addes nothing to the physics being discussed here. A person 
>> sitting in a chair or a book resting on a table is sufficiently 
>> described with Newtonian physics.
>>
> 
> It's predicted sufficiently, not described sufficiently.
> 
> Try "General Relativity".
> 
>> (Did you get the 0.87c reference?)
> 
> 
> no.

Really, with your knowledge of relativity? Ok, I admit that it should 
have been 0.866 c, but I was rounding.

- Kevin