Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
> 
> 
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
> 
>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> necoandjeff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> necoandjeff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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. This force comes from
>>>>>>> accleration. Newton's First?  F=ma.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Brett. Even Kevin's little poodle understands that you have
>>>>>> consistently been talking about mass as if it were a force. Mass is
>>>>>> measured in kilograms buddy., acceleration is measured in meters per
>>>>>> second squared, and force is measured in Newtons (not,
>>>>>> unfortunately, Einsteins, though we may understand if you were
>>>>>> confused by this.) A Newton is, surprisingly enough, equal to the
>>>>>> force required to accelerate 1 kilogram, one meter per second
>>>>>> squared, as suggested by F=ma. It's good of you to throw out that
>>>>>> equation 3 or 4 times in the same thread, but you might want to take
>>>>>> the time to understand it first. Arf, arf!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> g=1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That was a beautiful butsurigaku non-sequitor, Brett. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not a non-sequitor if you understand what g is. And know it's 
>>> value.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes. For some reason, you think g=1. I have no idea what you think g 
>> is, though.
>>
>>> It's also not a non-sequitor if you know that multiplication by a 
>>> constant is.
>>>
>>> It's not a non-sequitor if you know that force is often expressed in 
>>> kilograms (or tonnes). More accurately, kilogram-force or kilopond 
>>> but more commonly just kilogram. If it's good enough for Dassault 
>>> Mirage, it's good enough for me.
>>> http://www.sengpielaudio.com/ConvForce.htm
>>>
>>> It's not a non-sequitor if you know that multiplying a scalar by a 
>>> vector gives you a vector.
>>> "You are pressing down with 100kg". "Down" is a vector.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Down" has no magnitude therefore "down" is not a vector.
> 
> 
> You probably also think 0 is not a scalar.

Er, ok. I have no idea why you think "down" is a vector.

> Below you wrote F= 978.38 newtons. F is a vector where is the direction?

978.38 newtons in the direction of gravity's pull, or pushing up against 
the chair. Pick whichever you prefer. However, there is also a force of 
-978.38 newtons. You might notice this because you are not accelerating 
at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2.

>>> It's only a non-sequitor if you want to distract from the fact that 
>>> 5yen is inventing magical vectors to satisfy a highschool level 
>>> mis-understanding of classical physics. Much like your highschool 
>>> mis-understanding of fluid dynamics.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter in this example anyway because mass *is* force. 
>>
>>
>>
>> No, mass is not force.
> 
> 
> You stopped reading too soon.
> 
>>
>>> Gravity is the property of mass and can be defined completely without 
>>> any other reference. 

Yes, gravity is a property of mass. This is quite a different thing from 
saying "mass is force".

>>> The acceleration of gravity is also completely irrelevant. The force 
>>> exterted between our 100kg 5yen and earth is derived by this formula
>>> F=6.67x10^-11 * m1 * m2 / r^2
>>> where m1=100,000 and m2 is the mass of the earth (in grams), r is 
>>> distance. As you can see chairs have nothing to do with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, in that equation, the masses for "m" are in kilograms. I'll 
>> show you how it works.
>>
>> Remember when I said that gravity's pulls with a force of 980 newtons 
>> on a person with a mass of 100 kg?
>>
>> F = (6.67e-11)(100)(5.97e24)/(6.38e6)^2
>>
>> F = 3.982e16/4.07e13
>>
>> F= 978.38 newtons
> 
> 
> Very good. 

A shame that you thought m1 and m2 were in grams.

> How is that expressed as a force vector? Now you need to read 
> Newton's law of gravity to apply that to get past your highschool 
> physics. Here is a good quote:
> 
> "Certainly gravity is a force which exists between the Earth and the 
> objects which are near it. As you stand upon the Earth, you experience 
> this force. We have become accustomed to calling it the force of gravity 
> and have even represented it by the symbol Fgrav. Most students of 
> physics progress at least to this level of sophistication concerning the 
> notion of gravity."
> 
> Gowen seems to have got to that stage, now he just needs to try to work 
> out what a chair has got to do with the attraction of earth and him. 

I never said a chair had anything to do with it. I simply said that the 
chair a person at rest is sitting upon exerts a force equal and opposite 
to that of gravity.

> The 
> first step would be to realise that his primitive concept of 3 
> dimensional vectors can't describe the mutal attraction of two bodies.

Alrighty then. Why did you take out sci.physics, by the way? Surely they 
could set you straight.

- Kevin