Kevin Gowen wrote:
> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Hitler Barrassi wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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. 
> 
> 
> I, like most people, tend to think of the earth's center of mass as "down".

I refer you to Newton's Law of Gravity.


> 
>> Read Newtons Law of Gravitation, (ignoring General Relativity) it is a 
>> mutal force of attraction. 
> 
> 
> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
> 
>> Earth is pushing up.
> 
> 
> I thought it was attraction, not repulsion.

There is a difference between attraction forces and replusion forces?


> 
> No, the chair is pushing up. That you insist otherwise illustrates that 
> you do not understand what force is.
> 
>>> What on earth did you mean when you said "g=1"? What are the units?
>>>
>>
>> I meant 1g. Yes, I was careless.
> 
> 
> I see, so you meant to say g=1g? Alrighty then.
> 
>>>> So tell me again Gowen. How many forces are required to compress a 
>>>> spring? 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Two.
>>
>>
>>
>> Very good, we have made some ground (see below).
> 
> 
> Funny, the last time I said that, you made a wise crack about how we 
> would lose a lot of springs that way because they would be accelerating 
> off into infinity. That was also around the time that you said that a 
> spring could not be used to measure a force, even though that is 
> precisely how many forcemeters work.

A spring cannot measure one force. It can only measure two 
forces. Action and reaction. You went off on a semantics.


> 
>>>> 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)
> 
> 
> Maybe you have to learn about what a force is.

one, two.

> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> 
> Sure it is pushing up. It is pushing up with the same force as my weight.

which you can't measure.

> 
>>>>  | 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.
> 
> 
> Sorry, no light. I have no idea what you are attempting to explain. The 
> chair is only pushing down with 980 newtons if it is massless.

That was an explicit assumption you happilyy accepted earlier.

> 
> I am glad to see that you realize that a 100kg mass on the surface of 
> the earth is pulled down with a force of 980 newtons. Much better than 
> your assertion that a 200kg mass was pulled down with 400 newtons of force.

Except for when you lifted it. F=ma.
"You pick it up and momentarily there is 400kg [3920N] pushing 
downo on the chair (you + the bag + the acceleration of lifting 
the bag)"

Have you forgotten that when you used to weigh your self the 
scales would indicate very high weights initially? Can't have 
been that long ago.

> 
>>>> 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.

Mass=mass. Shame my best work is wasted on 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.
> 
> 
> I see. You did some Googling after the whooshing. Good on you, as you 
> Commonwealth folk say.

You think I had to google for that? You are projecting again. 
Admit it Gowen, you had no idea what General Relativity is. I 
hope you do now.

5en:
"Why did you mention Einstein when relativistic physics had 
nothing to do with your hypothetical? Was I traveling at 87% the 
speed of light? "


> 
> By the way, I hope you aren't under the impression that relativistic 
> physics is more advanced than Newtonian physics.

Advanced? No it is simpler, but it required non-Euclidian 
geometry. Maybe you should jump Newton and go directly to 
Einstein. Tensors shouldn't be a problem for you.


> I am baffled as to why 
> you keep going on about relativity, to be quite honest.
> 

Yes, you are baffled about most of this.

By the way, did you offer a special prayer for the Holy Father 
last Sunday at Mass?