| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Donald G. Shead" |
| Date: |
09 Jun 2004 04:08:57 PM |
| Object: |
What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
.
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
09 Jun 2004 05:31:32 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:48402bae.0406091308.5623c5f2@posting.google.com...
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
Solely to ***** you off, you doubly-retarded assistant butt floss repacker.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
09 Jun 2004 04:39:32 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent
Black holes, Dumb Donny *****.
Leptons, Dumb Donny *****.
[snip crap]
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
The Paris kilogram in counterpoint, Dumb Donny *****.
http://www.metrum.org/measures/metrics.htm
Idiot.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
Because eve a wet sedimenary rock is smarter than you are, Dumb Donny
*****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helmut Wabnig" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
11 Jun 2004 05:23:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:39:32 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
http://www.metrum.org/measures/metrics.htm
What a page!
Thanks, uncle Al.
***
Methinks of the fact, that every www page exists only that long,
as the provider fees are beeing paid by the respective owner.
One day all that fine stuff will be gone.
sigh.
w.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Double-A" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
12 Jun 2004 09:24:47 PM |
|
|
(Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0406091308.5623c5f2@posting.google.com>...
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
"Before the metric system, the French unit of length was the toise,
which is about 1949 mm. The toise was divided into 6 Paris feet, each
of which was divided into 12 pouces, that were further subdivided into
12 lignes. The use of 'Paris' to modify the foot suggests that there
were other feet, and there were. Differences between units of the same
name at different locations were common in France, and the leading
stimulus for the establishment of a uniform national system. The
differences in units were sometimes used for swindling of consumers.
The equality 1071 Paris feet = 1142 English feet, quoted by
Poggendorff in his history, can be used to convert 17th century
measurements into their equivalents. This makes the Paris pouce 27.1
mm. The ligne usuel was later defined as 0.09113 inches, and a toise
as 78.74172 inches. The livre was 1.10258 pounds, the boisseau 2.7512
British gallons. The litron was 1.7608 British pint. These Système
Usuel units were in use from 1812 to 1840, since the people refused to
use the new metric units, and this at least gave some uniformity. In
1840 the use of metric units was compelled (compulsion is a great part
of French liberté) under penalty, and the traditional names were
forbidden. This is similar to what is happening in Britain at the
present time. In the Système Ancien, used before 1812, the ligne was
0.0888 inches, the toise 6.3946 feet, the lieue was 2282 toise or
2.7637 miles. However, the old units varied from place to place in a
confused way."
http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/oldleng.htm
Double-A
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dik T. Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
13 Jun 2004 07:39:40 PM |
|
|
In article <79094630.0406121824.16566c14@posting.google.com> (Double-A) writes:
dcshead@charter.net (Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0406091308.5623c5f2@posting.google.com>...
....
However, the old units varied from place to place in a
confused way."
Yup. Exactly what I have told DGS quite a few times already. Contrary
to Britain, which had a standardised system quite early, the remainder
of Europe had similar units with oodles of variation.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
24 Jun 2004 08:34:06 AM |
|
|
"Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote in message news:<Hz9wI4.KD2@cwi.nl>...
In article <79094630.0406121824.16566c14@posting.google.com> (Double-A) writes:
dcshead@charter.net (Donald G. Shead) wrote in message news:<48402bae.0406091308.5623c5f2@posting.google.com>...
...
However, the old units varied from place to place in a
confused way."
Yup. Exactly what I have told DGS quite a few times already. Contrary
to Britain, which had a standardised system quite early, the remainder
of Europe had similar units with oodles of variation.
With Si, there are still oodles of units, and they are consistent.
I'll say that much. It's probably alright that some of the ideas are
wrong and misleading; at least they lead us all to the same place, I
think it's sometimes called perdu.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dik T. Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
24 Jun 2004 07:26:00 PM |
|
|
In article <48402bae.0406240534.63a785a7@posting.google.com> (Donald G. Shead) writes:
"Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote in message news:<Hz9wI4.KD2@cwi.nl>...
However, the old units varied from place to place in a
confused way."
Yup. Exactly what I have told DGS quite a few times already. Contrary
to Britain, which had a standardised system quite early, the remainder
of Europe had similar units with oodles of variation.
With Si, there are still oodles of units, and they are consistent.
Not so many units (at least less then before). And indeed, they are
consistent. My book on old Dutch units lists at least 500 in common
use in the Netherlands. Some of them used in only a few places, others
used more widely, but with far different definitions. I have already
shown the foot, ranging from 258 mm to 395 mm. Not to mention the rod
which could be 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 or 21 feet, depending on
where you were. (And, no, those different feet do not count in the
figure of 500 above.) With the metric system as introduced in 1820,
there were only some 20 differently named units left (from 1820 to 1870
Dutch names were used). Can you say that is an improvement? (It is
quite similar to the Imperial system that has three different weight
(eh, mass) scales, but with quite a bit more confusion.)
I'll say that much. It's probably alright that some of the ideas are
wrong and misleading; at least they lead us all to the same place, I
think it's sometimes called perdu.
I think you mean "paradise lost", never called "perdu", unless you are
extremely Frenchified ;-).
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Israel" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
24 Jun 2004 07:53:25 PM |
|
|
In article <48402bae.0406240534.63a785a7@posting.google.com>,
Donald G. Shead <dcshead@charter.net> wrote:
With Si, there are still oodles of units, and they are consistent.
I'll say that much. It's probably alright that some of the ideas are
wrong and misleading; at least they lead us all to the same place, I
think it's sometimes called perdu.
If you're trying to bring Herman Rubin into this, you spelled it wrong.
Robert Israel
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "C. Bond" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
09 Jun 2004 06:54:35 PM |
|
|
Donald G. Shead wrote:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
Are all your questions rhetorical? If not, why do you keep asking
questions and ignoring the answers?
--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable --
and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
10 Jun 2004 02:44:31 PM |
|
|
"C. Bond" <cbond@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<40C7A339.7F6C4DB9@ix.netcom.com>...
Donald G. Shead wrote:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
Are all your questions rhetorical? If not, why do you keep asking
questions and ignoring the answers?
All of my questions are serious: I will not ingore serious answers if
they aren't simply more dogma; which most of the answers are;
nonsensical dogma.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Blaidd" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
23 Jun 2004 01:14:07 PM |
|
|
(Donald G. Shead) wrote in
news:48402bae.0406101144.5f6725d4@posting.google.com:
"C. Bond" <cbond@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<40C7A339.7F6C4DB9@ix.netcom.com>...
Donald G. Shead wrote:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use
their linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of
their quantity.
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois -
goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
Are all your questions rhetorical? If not, why do you keep asking
questions and ignoring the answers?
All of my questions are serious: I will not ingore serious answers if
they aren't simply more dogma; which most of the answers are;
nonsensical dogma.
From someone who has been reading your posts for a while without having
actually been involved with them (okay, I've posted to 1 or 2), it would
appear that anything that does not agree with what you are saying is
considered dogma in your eyes.
Blaidd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dik T. Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
09 Jun 2004 07:27:40 PM |
|
|
In article <48402bae.0406091308.5623c5f2@posting.google.com> (Donald G. Shead) writes:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
To be honest, I do not think the French ever did use that term. They
used measures from Troyes and various other places, but the only reference
to such weights, still in use after 1793, are the "poids de marc".
(Ever wonder where the Anglo saxon Troy measures came from?)
Note moreover that "avoir du pois" is neither old nor modern French for
"goods of weight". "avoir" is the French verb for "to have" and "pois"
is French for "peas". The correct (old and modern) term for weight is
"poids" (which has a few related meanings). Next time consult a French
dictionary.
The reason the new system was adopted in France and so many other countries
all over Europe was the variety of older measures. At a guess, a few
thousand different feet have been standardised at one time or another.
(I count 55 different feet in the Netherlands alone, ranging from 258 mm
to 395 mm.) To be honest, I did not the same survey for "weights", but
it would be pretty similar. And it is *not* due to Napoleon that the
Netherlands converted, they shifted in 1820. For some other countries,
the date was as follows:
Belgium 1855
Danmark 1861
Germany 1872 (some states earlier)
Greece 1836
Italy 1863 (some states earlier)
Portugal 1860
Roumania 1866
Spain 1855
Switzerland 1877
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
10 Jun 2004 03:00:17 AM |
|
|
In sci.math, Donald G. Shead
<dcshead@charter.net>
wrote
on 9 Jun 2004 14:08:57 -0700
<48402bae.0406091308.5623c5f2@posting.google.com>:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Leptons are points.
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
Who says it wasn't? Newtons are units of weight (or force).
They're just not *fundamental*, since weight = acceleration * mass.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
10 Jun 2004 03:22:59 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<ou6lp1-nce.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
In sci.math, Donald G. Shead
<dcshead@charter.net>
wrote
on 9 Jun 2004 14:08:57 -0700
<48402bae.0406091308.5623c5f2@posting.google.com>:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Leptons are points.
A Point demarks an exact place; without extent in any way, shape, or
form: Reminds of the liter; which was supposed to be the unit volume
for high accuracy determinations. That too was found wanting, and had
to be revised(;^)
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
Who says it wasn't? Newtons are units of weight (or force).
They're just not *fundamental*, since weight = acceleration * mass.
No! It's mass = weight/acceleration = f/a = w/g:: force (f) = (w/g)a::
and weight (w) = (f/a)g
I forget who, but somebody told me quite a while ago that the newton
was a unit of force, not a unit of weight. That's why I ask if a
newton is now also a unit of weight.
I don't understand what Gene Nygaard is talking about, when he says
weight scales have measured the same thing for thousands of years, and
it appears he's talking about mass.
I realize that weight scales are used to determine the quantity of
matter in object's, bodies, and masses of matter but he seems to claim
they don't measure their weight; but their mass.
Maybe you understand what he means?
.
|
|
|
| User: "d3wd" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
12 Jun 2004 06:38:07 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:48402bae.0406101222.43c7bc4d@posting.google.com...
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:<ou6lp1-nce.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
In sci.math, Donald G. Shead
<dcshead@charter.net>
wrote
on 9 Jun 2004 14:08:57 -0700
<48402bae.0406091308.5623c5f2@posting.google.com>:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Leptons are points.
A Point demarks an exact place; without extent in any way, shape, or
form: Reminds of the liter; which was supposed to be the unit volume
for high accuracy determinations. That too was found wanting, and had
to be revised(;^)
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
Who says it wasn't? Newtons are units of weight (or force).
They're just not *fundamental*, since weight = acceleration * mass.
No! It's mass = weight/acceleration = f/a = w/g:: force (f) = (w/g)a::
and weight (w) = (f/a)g
if mass=weight/acc then weight=mass*acc, so how could you say he is wrong
I forget who, but somebody told me quite a while ago that the newton
was a unit of force, not a unit of weight. That's why I ask if a
newton is now also a unit of weight.
weight IS force in this case. moreover you say f/a=w/g, so f equals w... why
do you contradict yourself, too busy trying to make up something that sounds
clever?
I don't understand what Gene Nygaard is talking about, when he says
weight scales have measured the same thing for thousands of years, and
it appears he's talking about mass.
I realize that weight scales are used to determine the quantity of
matter in object's, bodies, and masses of matter but he seems to claim
they don't measure their weight; but their mass.
what are you trying to accomplish with this low-level discussion???
I think you're just a spammer, you're just here to ***** people off, am i
right?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tralfaz" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
11 Jun 2004 01:01:16 AM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
snip
I don't understand what Gene Nygaard is talking about, when he says
weight scales have measured the same thing for thousands of years, and
it appears he's talking about mass.
I realize that weight scales are used to determine the quantity of
matter in object's, bodies, and masses of matter but he seems to claim
they don't measure their weight; but their mass.
Maybe you understand what he means?
Metric scales can be calibrated to read the mass of an object (grams or Kg).
The assumption is that the mass is being pulled on with a force of 1
gravity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
11 Jun 2004 02:06:21 AM |
|
|
In article <40c94af6_4@newsfeed.slurp.net>, "Tralfaz" <tralfaz@emailblackhole.com> writes:
"Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
snip
I don't understand what Gene Nygaard is talking about, when he says
weight scales have measured the same thing for thousands of years, and
it appears he's talking about mass.
I realize that weight scales are used to determine the quantity of
matter in object's, bodies, and masses of matter but he seems to claim
they don't measure their weight; but their mass.
Maybe you understand what he means?
Metric scales can be calibrated to read the mass of an object (grams or Kg).
The assumption is that the mass is being pulled on with a force of 1
gravity.
Balance scales compare a mass with a standard mass. ***No***
assumption about the force of gravity (other than it is nonzero) is
made.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
11 Jun 2004 09:53:41 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<
Cut<
Balance scales compare a mass with a standard mass. ***No***
assumption about the force of gravity (other than it is nonzero) is
made.
So if the scale balances the mass is equal to the standard, and if it
doesn't, then sounds like your up the creek.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
12 Jun 2004 03:00:17 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Donald G. Shead
<dcshead@charter.net>
wrote
on 11 Jun 2004 07:53:41 -0700
<48402bae.0406110653.6f6ba6a9@posting.google.com>:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<
Cut<
Balance scales compare a mass with a standard mass. ***No***
assumption about the force of gravity (other than it is nonzero) is
made.
So if the scale balances the mass is equal to the standard, and if it
doesn't, then sounds like your up the creek.
One can subdivide the mass, within limits.
Assume, for instance, that one has a 1 kg reference mass, and
two identical buckets (established by weighing them using
pan scales). Call them A and B. Place A with the 1 kg mass, and
the B on the other pan. Of course they
won't balance, but one can then add a quantity of water
to B on the second pan until they do.
Now one has a bucket of water B. Remove everything from the pans,
and then take two smaller but identical buckets C and D, place them
on the pans. Fill them with water from B so that the pans balance.
One now has 0.5 kg of water in both C and D.
One can continue in this fashion indefinitely (until one
gets to single atoms, of course!), although the result is
more suited for computer engineers than mass standards
professionals, but a more elegant method might be using
an unbalanced pan scale, with careful measurements of the
length of the beam. This unbalanced pan scale would be
fabricated in such a fashion that one arm would be, say,
10 cm in length, and the other 1 m in length, and the mass
of the pans such that everything balances empty. One can
then place the 1 kg reference mass in the "heavy" pan,
and 10 little buckets; the other pan would take 1 little
bucket and be filled with water until everything balances.
Another method would involve something that looks a bit like
an ice tray; the 10 chambers would be equally sized and the
1 kg reference water poured thereinto, and frozen. The
resulting ice cubes would be 100 gm each, with sufficiently
careful removal.
If one doesn't like water one can use other liquids: molten
iron, for example.
I'm sure the NIST fellows have figured out all this already
so I'm not going to spend that much time on devising additional
schemes. :-) It would be interesting to count atoms, though
(just very lengthy!).
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gene Nygaard" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
11 Jun 2004 07:16:53 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:01:16 -0700, "Tralfaz"
<tralfaz@emailblackhole.com> wrote:
"Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
snip
I don't understand what Gene Nygaard is talking about, when he says
weight scales have measured the same thing for thousands of years, and
it appears he's talking about mass.
I realize that weight scales are used to determine the quantity of
matter in object's, bodies, and masses of matter but he seems to claim
they don't measure their weight; but their mass.
Maybe you understand what he means?
Metric scales can be calibrated to read the mass of an object (grams or Kg).
The assumption is that the mass is being pulled on with a force of 1
gravity.
Why do you specify "metric"? Can't they be calibrated to measure the
mass in pounds just as easily? If someone wanted to calibrate one to
measure the mass in slinches or slugs (which is not normally done),
couldn't that be done just as easily as mass in grams or kilograms?
Assume my scale is a one of those triple beam balances you use in the
chemistry lab, or one of those platform beam balances you are weighed
on at the doctor's office or the gym when you get serious about your
weight
Explain to me just exactly how you think that "the assumption is that
the mass is being pulled on with a force of 1 gravity" applies. How
would the reading be different if the acceleration of free fall were
half again as much? If it were half as much?
The only scales people had for weighing things more than 200 years ago
were those balances, of course--and people had been weighing things
since prehistoric times, around 8000 years ago.
--
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
"It's not the things you don't know
what gets you into trouble.
"It's the things you do know
that just ain't so."
Will Rogers
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gene Nygaard" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
11 Jun 2004 08:10:10 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jun 2004 13:22:59 -0700, (Donald G. Shead)
wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<ou6lp1-nce.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
In sci.math, Donald G. Shead
< >
wrote
on 9 Jun 2004 14:08:57 -0700
<48402bae.0406091308.5623c5f2@posting.google.com>:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
Leptons are points.
A Point demarks an exact place; without extent in any way, shape, or
form: Reminds of the liter; which was supposed to be the unit volume
for high accuracy determinations. That too was found wanting, and had
to be revised(;^)
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
Who says it wasn't? Newtons are units of weight (or force).
They're just not *fundamental*, since weight = acceleration * mass.
No! It's mass = weight/acceleration = f/a = w/g:: force (f) = (w/g)a::
and weight (w) = (f/a)g
I forget who, but somebody told me quite a while ago that the newton
was a unit of force, not a unit of weight. That's why I ask if a
newton is now also a unit of weight.
The newton is _always_ a unit of force.
But that force measured in newtons is often something that is never
called weight, and weight is often not a force. So calling a newton a
"unit of weight" is not a good fit. Calling it a "unit of force"
describes it well.
Sometimes the newton is indeed a unit of weight. Sometimes a gram is
a unit of weight. It depends on which definition of the ambiguous
word "weight" is being used.
Draw a Venn diagram with one circle representing something called
"weight" and the other circle representing something measured in
newtons. The intersecting part is nonempty; there are things called
weight which should be measured in newtons. However, the parts of
both circles which are not included in the other are also both
nonempty. There are things which called weight which should not be
measured in newtons, and there are things measured in newtons which
should not be called weight. (I realize I'm being loose with my "are"
and "should be" characterizations. If anybody wants to try to tighten
that up, have at it--I'm not going to bother.)
The pound is a unit of mass. It is often a "unit of weight" in the
U.S.--for all those packages in the grocery store and hardware store
and drug store and auto parts store which have the grams right
alongside the pounds, both the pounds and the grams are units of mass.
I don't understand what Gene Nygaard is talking about, when he says
weight scales have measured the same thing for thousands of years, and
it appears he's talking about mass.
Hey, Donald, are you actually finally starting to understand that
simple fact? Of course, the word "mass" never had that meaning until
many centuries after "weight" had that meaning. Furthermore, people
had been measuring this quantity now called "weight" or "mass" for
thousands of years before either of those English words existed.
I realize that weight scales are used to determine the quantity of
matter in object's, bodies, and masses of matter but he seems to claim
they don't measure their weight; but their mass.
No, I don't claim that. I claim that they do measure their "weight";
but that in this case "weight" doesn't mean anything different from
what is often called "mass" in physics jargon.
Look at "troy weight," and everything should be much clearer because
there is less ambiguity. Unlike their avoirdupois cousins, and unlike
grams and kilograms, the troy "units of weight" are always units of
mass. There are no troy pounds force, and there are no troy ounces
force.
Gene Nygaard
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gene Nygaard" |
|
| Title: Re: What ever happened to French avoirdupois |
11 Jun 2004 08:13:26 AM |
|
|
On 9 Jun 2004 14:08:57 -0700, (Donald G. Shead)
wrote:
#1) All masses have three dimensional extent so that we can use their
linear length; their area, or their bulk, as measures of their
quantity.
#2) All matter here on Earth has avoirdupois - avoir de pois - goods
sold by weight, from Old French, literally, goods of weight.
Why did metrics abandon avoirdupoise? Why wasn't it incorporated in
the metric system?
The term "avoirdupois" is an English term, invented in England. It
did not come from the French, though its spelling is influenced by
French, or at least the "law French" which prevailed in English
government for a few centuries.
The avoirdupois system was never used in France; that is strictly
England and her former colonies. What is now France did have several
other systems of units in the old days.
Gene Nygaard
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
