| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Don1" |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2005 08:30:24 AM |
| Object: |
The magic that turns mass into weight |
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity (g); which varies at various locations.
At any particular time and place, a particular body's mass, (f/a) when
multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity (g) at that place, turns
its mass into weight; so that (f/a)g=w.
Don
.
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 09:17:12 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117978224.473001.287540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity (g); which varies at various locations.
At any particular time and place, a particular body's mass, (f/a) when
multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity (g) at that place, turns
its mass into weight; so that (f/a)g=w.
Don
Why is the difference between mass and weight imaginary?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 09:54:31 AM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117978224.473001.287540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity (g); which varies at various locations.
At any particular time and place, a particular body's mass, (f/a) when
multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity (g) at that place, turns
its mass into weight; so that (f/a)g=w.
Don
Why is the difference between mass and weight imaginary?
What do you imagine is the difference? I imagine it's the way we look
at them.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 09:59:58 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117983271.250442.229350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117978224.473001.287540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity (g); which varies at various locations.
At any particular time and place, a particular body's mass, (f/a) when
multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity (g) at that place, turns
its mass into weight; so that (f/a)g=w.
Don
Why is the difference between mass and weight imaginary?
What do you imagine is the difference? I imagine it's the way we look
at them.
Don
Well, weight is a force that is dependent on gravity. Mass isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 10:42:06 AM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117983271.250442.229350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117978224.473001.287540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity (g); which varies at various locations.
At any particular time and place, a particular body's mass, (f/a) when
multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity (g) at that place, turns
its mass into weight; so that (f/a)g=w.
Don
Why is the difference between mass and weight imaginary?
What do you imagine is the difference? I imagine it's the way we look
at them.
Don
Well, weight is a force that is dependent on gravity. Mass isn't.
Don't kid yourself kiddo: Mass _is_ dependent on gravity.
A body's mass can be "turned" into weight by _multiplying_ it by the
acceleration (g) at which it will free fall, and vice-versa: A body's
weight can be 'turned' into mass by _dividing_ it by the acceleration
at which it will free fall.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 10:45:07 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117986125.962965.164180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Don't kid yourself kiddo: Mass _is_ dependent on gravity.
A body's mass can be "turned" into weight by _multiplying_ it by the
acceleration (g) at which it will free fall, and vice-versa: A body's
weight can be 'turned' into mass by _dividing_ it by the acceleration
at which it will free fall.
Don
When you say "turned into mass" you realise what this means don't you?
If you have a 100kg mass in a zero g environment what happens?
Weight implies a force. Mass doesn't. Can you see how this means the two
objects, while related at times, are not quite the same?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 11:04:29 AM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117986125.962965.164180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Don't kid yourself kiddo: Mass _is_ dependent on gravity.
A body's mass can be "turned" into weight by _multiplying_ it by the
acceleration (g) at which it will free fall, and vice-versa: A body's
weight can be 'turned' into mass by _dividing_ it by the acceleration
at which it will free fall.
Don
When you say "turned into mass" you realise what this means don't you?
If you have a 100kg mass in a zero g environment what happens?
Weight implies a force. Mass doesn't. Can you see how this means the two
objects, while related at times, are not quite the same?
Cut the bull Wacko: The term "turned into mass" is just a figure of
speech; there's no such thing as a zero g environment.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 11:07:37 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117987469.681975.225320@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117986125.962965.164180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Don't kid yourself kiddo: Mass _is_ dependent on gravity.
A body's mass can be "turned" into weight by _multiplying_ it by the
acceleration (g) at which it will free fall, and vice-versa: A body's
weight can be 'turned' into mass by _dividing_ it by the acceleration
at which it will free fall.
Don
When you say "turned into mass" you realise what this means don't you?
If you have a 100kg mass in a zero g environment what happens?
Weight implies a force. Mass doesn't. Can you see how this means the two
objects, while related at times, are not quite the same?
Cut the bull Wacko: The term "turned into mass" is just a figure of
speech; there's no such thing as a zero g environment.
Don
Ok, you are more than welcome to your own ideas.
If you are so convinced about how correct you are, what are you posting for?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 05:18:58 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4GdnZyJG57Qvj7fRVnyig@pipex.net...
Ok, you are more than welcome to your own ideas.
If you are so convinced about how correct you are, what are you posting
for?
The same reason nick posts his stuff with the qualifier that he ain't gonna
let us confuse him. I think Don is hoping that at least one person a year
will tell him what a right good sod he is. Or maybe he suffers from metric
envy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 05:29:00 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:mTKoe.21506$PR6.16317@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4GdnZyJG57Qvj7fRVnyig@pipex.net...
Ok, you are more than welcome to your own ideas.
If you are so convinced about how correct you are, what are you posting
for?
The same reason nick posts his stuff with the qualifier that he ain't
gonna let us confuse him. I think Don is hoping that at least one person
a year will tell him what a right good sod he is. Or maybe he suffers
from metric envy?
:-)
I always thought it was only gravity the kooks obsessed about, however here
Don proves me wrong with his obsessions to use a system which is based on a
variant of numbers. (who wants to do base-16 maths...........?)
Metric envy - very apt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 08:00:05 PM |
|
|
In sci.math, T Wake
<taswakeAt@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sun, 5 Jun 2005 23:29:00 +0100
<R9CdnVSaLoMu4T7fRVnyvA@pipex.net>:
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:mTKoe.21506$PR6.16317@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v4GdnZyJG57Qvj7fRVnyig@pipex.net...
Ok, you are more than welcome to your own ideas.
If you are so convinced about how correct you are, what are you posting
for?
The same reason nick posts his stuff with the qualifier that he ain't
gonna let us confuse him. I think Don is hoping that at least one person
a year will tell him what a right good sod he is. Or maybe he suffers
from metric envy?
:-)
I always thought it was only gravity the kooks obsessed about,
however here Don proves me wrong with his obsessions to use a
system which is based on a variant of numbers. (who wants to
do base-16 maths...........?)
Just in case anyone does:
+ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10
2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11
3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12
4 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13
5 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14
6 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15
7 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
8 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
9 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
a a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
b b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a
c c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b
d d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c
e e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d
f f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e
* 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
2 0 2 4 6 8 a c e 10 12 14 16 18 1a 1c 1e
3 0 3 6 9 c f 12 15 18 1b 1e 21 24 27 2a 2d
4 0 4 8 c 10 14 18 1c 20 24 28 2c 30 34 38 3c
5 0 5 a f 14 19 1e 23 28 2d 32 37 3c 41 46 4b
6 0 6 c 12 18 1e 24 2a 30 36 3c 42 48 4e 54 5a
7 0 7 e 15 1c 23 2a 31 38 3f 46 4d 54 5b 62 69
8 0 8 10 18 20 28 30 38 40 48 50 58 60 68 70 78
9 0 9 12 1b 24 2d 36 3f 48 51 5a 63 6c 75 7e 87
a 0 a 14 1e 28 32 3c 46 50 5a 64 6e 78 82 8c 96
b 0 b 16 21 2c 37 42 4d 58 63 6e 79 84 8f 9a a5
c 0 c 18 24 30 3c 48 54 60 6c 78 84 90 9c a8 b4
d 0 d 1a 27 34 41 4e 5b 68 75 82 8f 9c a9 b6 c3
e 0 e 1c 2a 38 46 54 62 70 7e 8c 9a a8 b6 c4 d2
f 0 f 1e 2d 3c 4b 5a 69 78 87 96 a5 b4 c3 d2 e1
:-)
(Gotta love Perl for stuff like this...)
Metric envy - very apt.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
06 Jun 2005 07:34:30 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:nfhcn2-4sh.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
Just in case anyone does:
+ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10
2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11
3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12
4 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13
5 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14
6 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15
7 7 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
8 8 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
9 9 a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
a a b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
b b c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a
c c d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b
d d e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c
e e f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d
f f 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e
* 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e f
2 0 2 4 6 8 a c e 10 12 14 16 18 1a 1c 1e
3 0 3 6 9 c f 12 15 18 1b 1e 21 24 27 2a 2d
4 0 4 8 c 10 14 18 1c 20 24 28 2c 30 34 38 3c
5 0 5 a f 14 19 1e 23 28 2d 32 37 3c 41 46 4b
6 0 6 c 12 18 1e 24 2a 30 36 3c 42 48 4e 54 5a
7 0 7 e 15 1c 23 2a 31 38 3f 46 4d 54 5b 62 69
8 0 8 10 18 20 28 30 38 40 48 50 58 60 68 70 78
9 0 9 12 1b 24 2d 36 3f 48 51 5a 63 6c 75 7e 87
a 0 a 14 1e 28 32 3c 46 50 5a 64 6e 78 82 8c 96
b 0 b 16 21 2c 37 42 4d 58 63 6e 79 84 8f 9a a5
c 0 c 18 24 30 3c 48 54 60 6c 78 84 90 9c a8 b4
d 0 d 1a 27 34 41 4e 5b 68 75 82 8f 9c a9 b6 c3
e 0 e 1c 2a 38 46 54 62 70 7e 8c 9a a8 b6 c4 d2
f 0 f 1e 2d 3c 4b 5a 69 78 87 96 a5 b4 c3 d2 e1
:-)
(Gotta love Perl for stuff like this...)
Very nice :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 02:36:02 PM |
|
|
Close enough for government work. On the orbiting shuttle, things have
(almost) no weight. But all their mass remains. It's harder to push a
satellite back and forth in the payload bay than it is to push an
astronaut or a bolt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 11:05:54 AM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117983271.250442.229350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117978224.473001.287540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity (g); which varies at various locations.
At any particular time and place, a particular body's mass, (f/a) when
multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity (g) at that place, turns
its mass into weight; so that (f/a)g=w.
Don
Why is the difference between mass and weight imaginary?
What do you imagine is the difference? I imagine it's the way we look
at them.
Don
Well, weight is a force that is dependent on gravity. Mass isn't.
Don't kid yourself kiddo: Mass _is_ dependent on gravity.
A body's mass can be "turned" into weight by _multiplying_ it by the
acceleration (g) at which it will free fall, and vice-versa: A body's
weight can be 'turned' into mass by _dividing_ it by the acceleration
at which it will free fall.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 11:53:09 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117987554.334636.233540@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Don't kid yourself kiddo: Mass _is_ dependent on gravity.
Ah, the circle is broken.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 11:09:28 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1117987554.334636.233540@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Don't kid yourself kiddo: Mass _is_ dependent on gravity.
A body's mass can be "turned" into weight by _multiplying_ it by the
acceleration (g) at which it will free fall, and vice-versa: A body's
weight can be 'turned' into mass by _dividing_ it by the acceleration
at which it will free fall.
Don
Interesting concept arising from the use of your formula. Are you trying to
imply that in a lower gravity environment an object mass is reduced?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Spriggs" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 11:12:04 AM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity
Weight = acceleration due to gravity times mass
It's really that simple. It's not magic, it's certainly not imaginary.
It's a particular case of something Newton knew well and that is taught
to school children:
Force = acceleration times mass.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 09:57:04 AM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity (g); which varies at various locations.
S-Head. Weight is force, not mass.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Carmody" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 10:11:55 AM |
|
|
Robert Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> writes:
Don1 wrote:
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity (g); which varies at various locations.
S-Head. Weight is force, not mass.
NIST disagree with you.
Millennia of people using the term "weight" disagree with you.
Phil
--
If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable
statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it
is the only religion that can prove itself to be one. -- John Barrow
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 10:21:06 AM |
|
|
"Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87ekbg7s90.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org...
Robert Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> writes:
Don1 wrote:
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity (g); which varies at various locations.
S-Head. Weight is force, not mass.
NIST disagree with you.
Millennia of people using the term "weight" disagree with you.
Doesn't make them right though.
People tend to misuse kg as a measurement of weight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gene Nygaard" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
07 Jun 2005 11:23:12 AM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87ekbg7s90.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org...
Robert Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> writes:
Don1 wrote:
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity (g); which varies at various locations.
S-Head. Weight is force, not mass.
NIST disagree with you.
Millennia of people using the term "weight" disagree with you.
Doesn't make them right though.
People tend to misuse kg as a measurement of weight.
There is no misuse. Just stupidity on your part, using an
inappropriate definition of the ambiguous word weight.
Kilograms are absolutely proper and legitimate units for the net weight
in the sale of goods. To use newtons for this purpose is what would be
illegal and improper.
Of course, in the United States, those pounds and ounces which appear
right alongside the grams and kilograms are every bit as much units of
mass. In fact, we don't have independent standards for pounds and
ounces; the pound is, by definition, 0.45359237 kg.
Same goes, of course, for measurements of human body weight in the
medical sciences, and for body weight of other animals as well in many
other sciences.
Gene Nygaard
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
07 Jun 2005 12:31:12 PM |
|
|
"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message
news:1118161392.087187.242620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There is no misuse. Just stupidity on your part, using an
inappropriate definition of the ambiguous word weight.
Nope, this is stupidity on your part.
If this was alt.commerce then you would be right. Its a science group
therefore the SI units are the correct definition.
There is no ambiguity in the SI definition of weight.
Weight, in scientific terms, requires an acceleration as part of its unit.
There is no acceleration in kg. Weight is defined as mass x acceleration due
to gravity. If kg were a unit of weight where have the units of acceleration
gone? If you re-arrange the equation it gets even harder to solve.
Not that this bothers commerce.
Kilograms are absolutely proper and legitimate units for the net weight
in the sale of goods. To use newtons for this purpose is what would be
illegal and improper.
Kilograms are not the correct scientific term to use for weight. This is not
a commerce group.
Your post is pointless.
Of course, in the United States, those pounds and ounces which appear
right alongside the grams and kilograms are every bit as much units of
mass. In fact, we don't have independent standards for pounds and
ounces; the pound is, by definition, 0.45359237 kg.
Pounds are not a unit of mass. They are an ambiguous term, which may be
where you have got the ambiguity idea from.
Same goes, of course, for measurements of human body weight in the
medical sciences, and for body weight of other animals as well in many
other sciences.
Measurements of weight on Earth make an assumption about the force of
gravity, which creates a constant. This is why kg is misused as a unit of
weight.
If you feel the need to try and defend a scientific term with commercial
rules, then feel free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
07 Jun 2005 04:13:13 PM |
|
|
In article <Y_WdnVjy-qZ7RDjfRVnyug@pipex.net>, "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> writes:
"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message
news:1118161392.087187.242620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There is no misuse. Just stupidity on your part, using an
inappropriate definition of the ambiguous word weight.
Nope, this is stupidity on your part.
I've to second Gene on this. The stupidity is definitely on your
part.
If this was alt.commerce then you would be right. Its a science group
therefore the SI units are the correct definition.
"Weight" is *not* an SI term. Force is. The association of "weight"
with "the force of gravity" is an informal, colloquial thing practiced
in physics (even there quite inconsistently) but not elsewhere. It is
not needed at all, in fact, we do not, after all, have a special word
for "electromagnetic force" other than just this, "electromagnetic
force". So, why should this be different for gravity. Still, there
is no damage, for the sake of brevity, to adopt some short word
instead of saying, over and over again, "the force of gravity". But
if you happen to adopt a word which the rest of the world is already
using for some other purpose, you have no basis for stating, then,
that your usage is correct and theirs is mistaken. At most you can
say that your 'weight" is not the same as their "weight". Same as the
mathematician's "vector" is not the same as the biologist's "vector".
Besides, hiding behind "this is a science group" loses its validity
when comments are made about how people in general are mistaken measuring
weight in kilograms. No, they are not mistaken and such comments are
somewhere between ignorant and idiotic. They measure weight in
kilograms in the context of commerce and in this context "weight"
stands for "mass". Can you wrap your mind around this?
There is no ambiguity in the SI definition of weight.
There is no SI definition of weight, only of force.
Measurements of weight on Earth make an assumption about the force of
gravity, which creates a constant.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Proper measurements of weight are done using a
balance. A balance requires a nonzero force of gravity but other than
this, the strength of the force is irrelevant. Two masses which
balance at 1g will balance at 10^-6 g or at 10^6 g just as well. An
amount of gold which weighted 1 ounce on the equator, will weight the
same on the poles.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
07 Jun 2005 06:33:58 PM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:J5ope.19$45.4031@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <Y_WdnVjy-qZ7RDjfRVnyug@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
<taswakeAt@hotmail.com> writes:
<snip>
Ok, I stand corrected.
One point, I very much doubt shop keepers are using balance scales when they
weigh my bananas out. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
07 Jun 2005 06:56:38 PM |
|
|
In article <2_ednbbWrNx3szvfRVnygw@pipex.net>, "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:J5ope.19$45.4031@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <Y_WdnVjy-qZ7RDjfRVnyug@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
<taswakeAt@hotmail.com> writes:
<snip>
Ok, I stand corrected.
One point, I very much doubt shop keepers are using balance scales when they
weigh my bananas out. :-)
You know, the funny thing is that in the past, in those supposedly
less sophicated times, all the shopkeepers used was balance scales. I
remember from my childhood the corner grocery store with its balance
and a set of weights (starting from as small as 5-10 grams and going
to 5-10 kg). The weights were provided by some standards keeping
institution (had a seal of certification on them) and were
periodically inspected. Nowadays, true, you don't have this in stores
anymore and those that are used in stores are, indeed, measuring
force. Thus, they've to be calibrated for any specific locality
(using a balance) and when used elsewhere, they may be off, indeed.
But if you weigh gold, not bananas, you'll prefer a balance.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
07 Jun 2005 06:58:51 PM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:Wuqpe.22$45.4374@news.uchicago.edu...
You know, the funny thing is that in the past, in those supposedly
less sophicated times, all the shopkeepers used was balance scales. I
remember from my childhood the corner grocery store with its balance
and a set of weights (starting from as small as 5-10 grams and going
to 5-10 kg). The weights were provided by some standards keeping
institution (had a seal of certification on them) and were
periodically inspected. Nowadays, true, you don't have this in stores
anymore and those that are used in stores are, indeed, measuring
force. Thus, they've to be calibrated for any specific locality
(using a balance) and when used elsewhere, they may be off, indeed.
But if you weigh gold, not bananas, you'll prefer a balance.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
I remember the old balance scales - but it has been a long time since I have
seen one used in anger :-)
I wonder how often they are calibrated. Might be an interesting point to
argue next time I go shopping.... Well, interesting until the security
guards turn up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
07 Jun 2005 07:12:10 PM |
|
|
In article <7bmdnRvVY5BcqTvfRVnyvQ@pipex.net>, "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:Wuqpe.22$45.4374@news.uchicago.edu...
You know, the funny thing is that in the past, in those supposedly
less sophicated times, all the shopkeepers used was balance scales. I
remember from my childhood the corner grocery store with its balance
and a set of weights (starting from as small as 5-10 grams and going
to 5-10 kg). The weights were provided by some standards keeping
institution (had a seal of certification on them) and were
periodically inspected. Nowadays, true, you don't have this in stores
anymore and those that are used in stores are, indeed, measuring
force. Thus, they've to be calibrated for any specific locality
(using a balance) and when used elsewhere, they may be off, indeed.
But if you weigh gold, not bananas, you'll prefer a balance.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
I remember the old balance scales - but it has been a long time since I have
seen one used in anger :-)
:-)) Well, tossing a five kg weigh on a customer could be deadly.
I wonder how often they are calibrated.
A good question. Also, by whom?
Might be an interesting point to argue next time I go shopping....
Well, interesting until the security guards turn up.
If you've a lawyer friend, bring him along:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gene Nygaard" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
07 Jun 2005 01:39:11 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Gene Nygaard" <gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message
news:1118161392.087187.242620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
There is no misuse. Just stupidity on your part, using an
inappropriate definition of the ambiguous word weight.
Nope, this is stupidity on your part.
If this was alt.commerce then you would be right. Its a science group
therefore the SI units are the correct definition.
There is no ambiguity in the SI definition of weight.
There is no "SI definition of weight" so it is pretty trivial to say
that there is "no ambiguity" in it. Of course, for this particular
word, most of the ambiguity is not within any one particular definition
of it in the first place; rather, the ambiguity lies in the fact that
there are several QUITE DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT definitions in use.
However, as NIST--the United States national standards
laboratory--points out in its "Guide for the Use of the International
System of Units (SI)", NIST Special Publication 811,
=B7 "Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight defined in this way is
the
newton (N)"
and
=B7 Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the
kilogram (kg)"
Weight, in scientific terms, requires an acceleration as part of its unit.
There is no acceleration in kg. Weight is defined as mass x acceleration =
due
to gravity. If kg were a unit of weight where have the units of accelerat=
ion
gone? If you re-arrange the equation it gets even harder to solve.
Not that this bothers commerce.
Granted. And there certainly is no reason why it *should* bother
commerce, is there? After all, merchants and their customers have the
prior claim to this word, by a long shot. They "own" it, and use it
quite properly and legitimately. They have been using their defintion
of "weight" for more than 3/4 of a millennium longer than a small
priesthood of other users have often (but NOT uniformly) used a
different definition in their jargon usage. That usage has, of course,
leaked out into general use to a certain extent as well--but never when
we deal with testing and certifying the scales used to measure weight
in commerce, for example.
In "scientific terms", what does it mean when the rocket scientists at
NASA tell us that the weight of the Apollo 11 lunar module, at the time
of liftoff, was 10,776.6 lb?
What does it mean, in "scientific terms", that the molecular weight of
ammonia is 17.03 unified atomic mass units?
Kilograms are absolutely proper and legitimate units for the net weight
in the sale of goods. To use newtons for this purpose is what would be
illegal and improper.
Kilograms are not the correct scientific term to use for weight. This is =
not
a commerce group.
Your post is pointless.
Of course, in the United States, those pounds and ounces which appear
right alongside the grams and kilograms are every bit as much units of
mass. In fact, we don't have independent standards for pounds and
ounces; the pound is, by definition, 0.45359237 kg.
Pounds are not a unit of mass. They are an ambiguous term, which may be
where you have got the ambiguity idea from.
Pounds certainly are not ambiguous when it comes to commerce. Why in
the world do you suppose the law bothers defining a pound in the first
place? It doesn't bother defining a pound-force, so maybe that is
another clue you can use.
Same goes, of course, for measurements of human body weight in the
medical sciences, and for body weight of other animals as well in many
other sciences.
Measurements of weight on Earth make an assumption about the force of
gravity, which creates a constant. This is why kg is misused as a unit of
weight.
No. Kilograms are used for this weight, because we do not want to
measure a quantity which depends on the strength of the local
gravitational field, when we are dealing with questions of general
health and fitness, in the medical science and in sports.
Like I said before, you can choose not to call this quantity weight.
Just don't continue to call it "weight" and misapply a definition
inappropriate to the context, and don't ***** about kilograms being
used for this purpose, because they are the proper SI units to use.
You and your twin S*head are barking up the wrong tree when you *****
about those kilograms being used inappropriately, or about the word
"weight" being used inappropriately for all those "weights" measured in
kilograms.
After all, kilograms force remain in fairly common use, even though
their use has been deprecated since the SI was introduced in 1960. But
they are hardly ever used for anything that is called "weight"; rather,
they are most often used for other forces, such as thrust of jet and
rocket engines, tension of bicycle spokes, and torque wrenches in
"meter-kilograms" and pressure gauges in "kilograms per square
centimeter".
The kilograms which are used for something which is called "weight"
are, more than 99% of the time, the proper SI units for the purpose,
units of mass (as pointed out above, there are no kilograms force in
SI, so they could never be the proper SI units for anything).
Gene Nygaard
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
07 Jun 2005 01:18:03 PM |
|
|
Gene Nygaard wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87ekbg7s90.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org...
Robert Kolker <nowhere@nowhere.com> writes:
Don1 wrote:
The imaginary difference between mass and weight depends on the
acceleration due to gravity (g); which varies at various locations.
S-Head. Weight is force, not mass.
NIST disagree with you.
Millennia of people using the term "weight" disagree with you.
Doesn't make them right though.
People tend to misuse kg as a measurement of weight.
There is no misuse. Just stupidity on your part, using an
inappropriate definition of the ambiguous word weight.
Kilograms are absolutely proper and legitimate units for the net weight
in the sale of goods. To use newtons for this purpose is what would be
illegal and improper.
Of course, in the United States, those pounds and ounces which appear
right alongside the grams and kilograms are every bit as much units of
mass. In fact, we don't have independent standards for pounds and
ounces; the pound is, by definition, 0.45359237 kg.
Same goes, of course, for measurements of human body weight in the
medical sciences, and for body weight of other animals as well in many
other sciences.
Gene Nygaard
I was always amused by the sign on the scale at the store, "Honest
weight, no springs!"
Meaning, of course, that the "weight" being measured and displayed
does not involve a force measurement, and is, in truth, mass...
Can anyone think of a place where commerce, involving "weighing", is
carried out in an accelerated frame of reference? A stand selling
candy on the rim of a merry-go-round?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
08 Jun 2005 02:51:46 PM |
|
|
In article <1118168283.539675.7640@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "jmorriss@idirect.com" <jmorriss@idirect.com> writes:
Can anyone think of a place where commerce, involving "weighing", is
carried out in an accelerated frame of reference? A stand selling
candy on the rim of a merry-go-round?
How about at the checkout counter in a grocery store. If that isn't
an accelerated frame, I don't know what is.
John Briggs
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The magic that turns mass into weight |
05 Jun 2005 10:19:18 AM |
|
|
Phil Carmody wrote:
NIST disagree with you.
Millennia of people using the term "weight" disagree with you.
Take the same mass to the moon and mars and they weigh differently. How
do you account for that?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
