Kevin Gowen wrote:
> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't elaborate on this point. You cannot use a spring to 
>>>>>>>>> measure a force. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really? Don't tell Hooke.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It can only be used to measure weight (NB deliberate use of 
>>>>>>>>> "weight", not "mass" not "force", but "weight". 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Weight is a force.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Weight is a scalar. Force is a vector. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Weight, being a force and having magnitude and direction, is a 
>>>>>> vector.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and weight is measured in kilograms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Game. Set. Match.
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Must be tough for you playing against someone who is thinking 
>>>>> several moves ahead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh and when I jump out the building to test the bathroom scales as 
>>>>> you suggested how much do I weigh?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't weigh in the direction of anything.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this planet, your weight is a force vector in the direction of 
>>>>>> the earth's center of mass. This is why you place a scale beneath 
>>>>>> you rather than on top of your head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you are in Florida your weight is in a different direction to 
>>>>>>> mine? (I'll let you off this one)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A spring, like your tug of war rope, requires a force at both 
>>>>>>>>> ends to expand, or contract.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. In the case of a bathroom scale that measures weight with a 
>>>>>>>> spring, the person standing on the scale provides *the* force at 
>>>>>>>> one end. The floor beneath the scale provides the force at the 
>>>>>>>> other end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You missed the definite article again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You called "a" the definite article again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 'the' is the definite article?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a force act on a spring the spring will accelerate off in the 
>>>>>>> direction of the force. We would lose a lot of springs that way. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A force need not result in motion. Compress a spring between your 
>>>>>> thumb and a finger. Force is acting on the spring, 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Forces are acting on the spring.
>>>>>
>>>>>  From 2 directions, one from my finger and the other from my thumb. 
>>>>> Two digits, two forces. (The opposite of your Not "a force", two 
>>>>> forces. Equal and opposite, Newton's 3rd is satisfied. I can't 
>>>>> compress a spring with one finger, sort of like one hand clapping. 
>>>>> Really this is too easy. Take a break, Kevin.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you take a break or my server ignored you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is just too comical. I can't believe you necroed this thread. 
>>> Most people in your position would have taken the opportunity to stay 
>>> quiet and salvage a minimal amount of face. I had given you the 
>>> benefit of the doubt and assumed you were just ripping off my Andy 
>>> Kaufman schtick, but now it seems you are sincere.
>>>
>>> It finally dawned on me that your misunderstanding results from your 
>>> ignorance of the difference between force and work.
>>
>>
>>
>> You, chairs and work have absolutely no relationship. (actually the 
>> chair does a fair amount of work, but not the strict scientific 
>> definition)
> 
> 
> I can't tell if you are cracking wise or attempting to make a scientific 
> assertion.
> 
>>> This fact reflects that you have no knowledge of physics whatsoever, 
>>> although such might have been gleaned from the fact that you asserted 
>>> the "gravitational constant" has a value of 1, that "m" stands for 
>>> mass in grams, and that "down" is a vector.
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems you have "forgotten" your chair example which means you have 
>> realised you were wrong.
> 
> 
> What's to forget? I'll repeat it again:
> If a person with a mass of 100kg is sitting on a chair at rest, the 
> force of gravity's pull is 980 newtons. In turn, the chair pushes up 
> with 980 newtons.

No. You still think that gravitational force is a "downward" 
force. Read Newtons Law of Gravitation, (ignoring General 
Relativity) it is a mutal force of attraction. Earth is pushing up.


> 
> What on earth did you mean when you said "g=1"? What are the units?
> 

I meant 1g. Yes, I was careless.


>>> Regarding your confusion as to what are the definite and indefinite 
>>> articles, I refer you to this page for novice students of English as 
>>> a second language:
>>> http://esl.about.com/library/beginner/blathe.htm
>>>
>>
>> I'm not confused, I even highlighted your mistake.
>>
>>  >>>>>> spring, the person standing on the scale provides *the* force at
> 
> 
> Is that why you asked, "'the' is the definite article?"

So answer the question and put it adjacent to your comment:
 >You called "a" the definite article again.


> 
>> So tell me again Gowen. How many forces are required to compress a 
>> spring? 
> 
> 
> Two.

Very good, we have made some ground (see below).

> 
>> How does a chair magically know when to push up? 
> 
> 
> The chair knows nothing. It doesn't need to.
> 
>> If you add two
>> equal and opposite forces they cancel each other; 
> 
> 
> Yes, which is why the person is at rest.

(maybe I have to introduce time dilation)

> 
>> so why does the chair push down? (down being the null length vector 
>> pointing to the center of the earth)
> 
> 
> Push down on what, the earth? Probably because it has mass.

As we have discussed previously it is now pushing down with a 
force of it's own weight and yours. It doesn't seem to be pushing 
up at all.

> 
>>  | 980newtons
>> \|/
>>
>> /|\
>>  | 980newtons
>>
>>
>> so we have fab - fba = 0. But yet the chair still pushes down with a 
>> force 980newtons. Seems your highschool idea of physic is missing 
>> something significant.
> 
> 
> Maybe you should enlighten me, then.

Replace the chair with a spring and it's obvious. You and the 
earth are compressing that spring. That pop sound is the sound of 
the cartoon light coming on.

> 
>> Have you discovered General Relativity yet? It's very interesting. I 
>> suggest you ignore the time dilation stuff at first.
> 
> 
> Yes, that's why I made the remark about travelling at .866c , which 
> whooshed you.
> 

Jesus Fucking Christ. I know you must be stressed knowing the 
Pope is so sick but let me spell this out for you.

A few key points:

Special Relativity: speed of light, observers agree, speed 
distorts time etc (ignores gravity)

General Relavitity: (Einstein's theory of Gravity) mass curves 
time/space, gravity bends light, corrects Newton etc.

I am refering to the time dilation of mass (Gen Rel) which 
accounts for gravity in "normal" situations, not from speed (Spec 
Rel). "c" has nothing to do with it.