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.


 > 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.


> 
>> 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". In fact I clearly 
refered to "the acceleration of lifting the bag". The bathroom 
scales you suggested to use would measure this.


>> 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 when the correct way to 
measure force is it's effect on moving a body of mass?

Regardless, kilograms and pounds are used to measure force (eg 
the Pratt and Whitney F100s produce 25,000 pounds of thrust). 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)?




> 
>> 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? Where did all that extra *force* from the chair go?

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? 
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. How does that 
work? Oh yes Newtons 3rd. Sorry, unlike in law you have to 
describe what is happening, not just act and section.

Quite simply, it is the earth pushing "up" not the chair or more 
accurately like Yumiko and me,mutal attraction. 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.


> 
>> 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? It's my understanding that 1st 
university in America is eqivalent to Year 12 of school (final 
year of highschool) in Australia.


> 
> 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.