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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> 

Because (kilo)grams are the SI for 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.

F can be pounds, dynes (?) ie dynometer, kiloponds, kilograms-force.


> 
>>>> 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.

Accerlating the bag creates a force. Stand on your bathroom 
scales and jump up. Watch the dial go off the scale (pun 
intended) before breaking when you come down.

> 
>>> 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

bzzzt. I couldn't be "calibrated".


> 
>>>>>> 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.

You measure a force by it's effect on changing the velocity of a 
  object of known mass.


> 
>>> 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.

With it's magic up force. Of course as we have already 
established, the is also pushing down with the same force 
(ignoring the chair's weight). We do /vector arithmetic/ and 
these two chair vectors disappear. But still you are sitting in a 
chair and it is still pushing down on the ground.

Now it's time for Newton's Universal Law of Gravity and the chair 
vectors disappear.



> 
>> 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.

apparently pounds are.

> 
>>> 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.

How many pounds in a kilogram?

Don't forget to tell all the European aerospace agencies not to 
use tonnes. Maybe Jason could translate a letter for you to write 
to Mr Dassault.


> 
>>>> 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.

I hope Nth Korea doesn't manage to harnass the chair. None of us 
would be safe.



>>>> 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.

you farted.

> 
>> 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?

Elektronenabsfoss Kraft. However we are, or at least I am, using 
classic physics.

> 
>>>> 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?

The earth is pushing up. A very simple concept but too advanced 
for your highschool physics.

> 
>>>> 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.

No he didn't. He understood what was happening.

> 
>>>> 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".

That is why we need "pushing up" up make it a vector.


When I was looking for my music technology magazine I was amazed 
at the number of Star Wars magazine polluting the area. I opened 
one at random and found a question like "At the beginning of 
episode 1 there are several space ships around Naboo but at the 
end there are none". I can't remember the scene, in fact I can't 
even remember what episode 1 was about. However I couldn't help 
reading that question in the voice of Simpsons' Comic Book Guy.