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

> 
>> 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.


> 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?


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

> 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.

>> 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?

> 
>> 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. 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. 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.

> 
>> 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.

> 
> 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.

> 
> 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?

> 
>> 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)

> 
>> 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.

> 
>> 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.

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

> 
>>> 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.