Science > Physics > What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Don1" |
| Date: |
29 Jun 2005 08:57:54 PM |
| Object: |
What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
Would physics be any different?
Don
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standardfor mass? |
29 Jun 2005 09:33:27 PM |
|
|
impossible
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SamHouston" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
29 Jun 2005 11:42:56 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120096674.395333.33750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would physics be any different?
1. There is no "metric committee"
2. a " standard " is a fixed measure, which yields the identical amount
when measured again later in time.
3. since w / g = f / a on a theoretical Earth surface only in the
vertical direction, neither of these quanties would qualify as a "standard"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 07:48:23 AM |
|
|
SamHouston wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120096674.395333.33750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would physics be any different?
1. There is no "metric committee"
So O.K. There's one in every barrel(;^) but everyone knows that the
metric system originated from a committee of the French government,
that was assigned to invent a new system of weights and measures.
2. a " standard " is a fixed measure, which yields the identical amount
when measured again later in time.
What if they had adopted the constants w/g, and f/a as standard _Units_
of mass?
3. since w / g = f / a on a theoretical Earth surface only in the
vertical direction, neither of these quanties would qualify as a "standard"
Boloney: For any particular object; they are constants; at any
particular time and place, and as units, they each equal one (unit).
So for any object; ONE= w/g=f/a.
Follow me so far?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anexgerage" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 09:42:13 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120135703.690955.32770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SamHouston wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120096674.395333.33750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would physics be any different?
1. There is no "metric committee"
So O.K. There's one in every barrel(;^) but everyone knows that the
metric system originated from a committee of the French government,
that was assigned to invent a new system of weights and measures.
The French did not invent French Fries either. How are the French doing
with their EU ?
2. a " standard " is a fixed measure, which yields the identical
amount
when measured again later in time.
What if they had adopted the constants w/g, and f/a as standard _Units_
of mass?
However w, g, f, and a are NOT constants. g is suppose to be, but only
under certain conditions, like altitude, and axis, so it is too limited in
any kind of use
3. since w / g = f / a on a theoretical Earth surface only in the
vertical direction, neither of these quanties would qualify as a
"standard"
Boloney: For any particular object; they are constants; at any
particular time and place, and as units, they each equal one (unit).
So for any object; ONE= w/g=f/a.
Follow me so far?
Don
So you are saying Mass does exists and it is equal to w/g or f/a?
And the French invented that?
I thought it was Newton, an English dude?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clemens W" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 03:02:56 PM |
|
|
Don, still running cicles without using his brain, wrote:
What if they had adopted the constants w/g, and f/a as standard _Units_
of mass?
First, this would mean to define a new unit for Force F (not
f=frequency, a definition you seem to be unable to remember), but this
definition must not be derived from mass. So far you've been unable to
come up with one.
Second, w/g is only constant for one given object. Another object of
different volume and/or different density may very well be different.
Furthermore, this object would then become an artifact, which
contradicts your paradigm of an artifact-free system of units.
Boloney: For any particular object; they are constants; at any
particular time and place, and as units, they each equal one (unit).
So for any object; ONE= w/g=f/a.
No, Don, not for ANY object, but for ONE certain, defined object, you
can define:
one (UNIT) = w/g or one (UNIT)=F/a
Don't always forget the units, Don. This problem also keeps haunting
you.
But for your question: What if...w/g or F/a was the standard?
Since you really, absolutely, definitely insist that Force, not mass,
is fundamantal...
IT STILL DOES NOT CHANGE A SINGLE BIT ON PHYSICS AS WE ALL KNOW!
Because, if you really want to see it upside down...
THIS COMMITTEE DID CHOOSE w/g AS STANDARD!
Remember?
one (UNIT) = w/g or one (UNIT)=F/a
Now all we need to do is to take one certain, defined object, which in
this case would be a chunk of metal stored in Sevres, France and we
get:
1 kg = 9,8066N / 9,8066m/s^2 or 1 kg = 1N / 1m/s^2
See, now we have defined mass as ratio of weight to gravitational
acceleration or mass as ratio of Force to acceleration.
I hope you're lucky now and just ignore the fact Force is already
defined in terms of mass.
Your turn,
A. Friend
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dik T. Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 09:51:49 AM |
|
|
In article <1120135703.690955.32770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> writes:
SamHouston wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120096674.395333.33750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would physics be any different?
1. There is no "metric committee"
So O.K. There's one in every barrel(;^) but everyone knows that the
metric system originated from a committee of the French government,
that was assigned to invent a new system of weights and measures.
That was not a French government committee. It consisted of people
from various nations (the US amongst others).
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 11:16:21 AM |
|
|
Dik T. Winter wrote:
In article <1120135703.690955.32770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> writes:
SamHouston wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120096674.395333.33750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would physics be any different?
1. There is no "metric committee"
So O.K. There's one in every barrel(;^) but everyone knows that the
metric system originated from a committee of the French government,
that was assigned to invent a new system of weights and measures.
That was not a French government committee. It consisted of people
from various nations (the US amongst others).
So O.K. My appologies to the French: They aren't solely responsible for
the botched fiasco; there's a lot of politics involved, and I'm not
interested in political football.
The point I'm trying to make is that for any particular object,
"resting" on any supporting surface, its weight (w), divided by the
acceleration (g) at which it will free fall there, is a constant; equal
to ONE _unit_. So that w/g=f/a=ONE for any given object.
Do you get that? For any object; ONE= w/g=f/a.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abelliae" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 11:53:22 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120148181.379808.279400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dik T. Winter wrote:
In article <1120135703.690955.32770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Don1"
<dcshead@charter.net> writes:
SamHouston wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120096674.395333.33750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would physics be any different?
1. There is no "metric committee"
So O.K. There's one in every barrel(;^) but everyone knows that the
metric system originated from a committee of the French government,
that was assigned to invent a new system of weights and measures.
That was not a French government committee. It consisted of people
from various nations (the US amongst others).
So O.K. My appologies to the French: They aren't solely responsible for
the botched fiasco; there's a lot of politics involved, and I'm not
interested in political football.
The point I'm trying to make is that for any particular object,
"resting" on any supporting surface, its weight (w), divided by the
acceleration (g) at which it will free fall there, is a constant; equal
to ONE _unit_. So that w/g=f/a=ONE for any given object.
Do you get that? For any object; ONE= w/g=f/a.
If I put a book on a scale on a table, and it weighs 3 pounds, then it is
equal to ONE unit?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 01:33:04 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120148181.379808.279400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The point I'm trying to make is that for any particular object,
"resting" on any supporting surface, its weight (w), divided by the
acceleration (g) at which it will free fall there, is a constant; equal
to ONE _unit_. So that w/g=f/a=ONE for any given object.
Do you get that? For any object; ONE= w/g=f/a.
Don
I assume you are trying to use the f of f/a as the gravitational force. Is
that correct?
If so you are saying:
weight divided by gravity is equal to the force of gravity
divided by its acceleration
Is that correct?
If it isn't the gravitational force, what is it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 02:21:58 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120148181.379808.279400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The point I'm trying to make is that for any particular object,
"resting" on any supporting surface, its weight (w), divided by the
acceleration (g) at which it will free fall there, is a constant; equal
to ONE _unit_. So that w/g=f/a=ONE for any given object.
Do you get that? For any object; ONE= w/g=f/a.
Don
I assume you are trying to use the f of f/a as the gravitational force. Is
that correct?
If so you are saying:
weight divided by gravity is equal to the force of gravity
divided by its acceleration
Is that correct?
If it isn't the gravitational force, what is it?
Have you ever heard that weight is the particular force; due to
gravity? Well it is.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 03:06:33 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120159318.069199.160080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
I assume you are trying to use the f of f/a as the gravitational force.
Is
that correct?
If so you are saying:
weight divided by gravity is equal to the force of gravity
divided by its acceleration
Is that correct?
If it isn't the gravitational force, what is it?
Have you ever heard that weight is the particular force; due to
gravity? Well it is.
Don
So you are saying that f=weight/gravity = gravitational force/acceleration
then?
Can you show me a worked example, say with an block of lead static at sea
level, please?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 04:06:22 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120159318.069199.160080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
I assume you are trying to use the f of f/a as the gravitational force.
Is
that correct?
If so you are saying:
weight divided by gravity is equal to the force of gravity
divided by its acceleration
Is that correct?
If it isn't the gravitational force, what is it?
Have you ever heard that weight is the particular force; due to
gravity? Well it is.
Don
So you are saying that f=weight/gravity = gravitational force/acceleration
then?
_Something_ like that.
Can you show me a worked example, say with an block of lead static at sea
level, please?
Nope. You'd misinterpret, and/or misrepresent it.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 04:32:34 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120165582.589536.224230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
So you are saying that f=weight/gravity = gravitational
force/acceleration
then?
_Something_ like that.
Can you show me a worked example, say with an block of lead static at sea
level, please?
Nope. You'd misinterpret, and/or misrepresent it.
Don
No need to be so defensive. If your formula works and is better than F=ma,
nothing I can do or say will have that effect on it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dik T. Winter" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 06:17:24 PM |
|
|
In article <1120148181.379808.279400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> writes:
....
The point I'm trying to make is that for any particular object,
"resting" on any supporting surface, its weight (w), divided by the
acceleration (g) at which it will free fall there, is a constant; equal
to ONE _unit_. So that w/g=f/a=ONE for any given object.
Do you get that? For any object; ONE= w/g=f/a.
Except that it is false if the object is subject to other forces. But
indeed, in general it is constant, and called mass, and that was easy
enough to standardise. So, what is your objection?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 07:39:05 AM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120096674.395333.33750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would physics be any different?
Don
Well, as you admit, putting numbers in would be harder.
Have you given up on the old thread about this now don?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don1" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 07:55:51 AM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120096674.395333.33750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would physics be any different?
Don
Well, as you admit, putting numbers in would be harder.
It would be easier.
Have you given up on the old thread about this now don?
Starting a new thread doesn't mean giving up on an older one.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 01:28:31 PM |
|
|
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120136151.392678.106850@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
T Wake wrote:
"Don1" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1120096674.395333.33750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Would physics be any different?
Don
Well, as you admit, putting numbers in would be harder.
It would be easier.
Have you given up on the old thread about this now don?
Starting a new thread doesn't mean giving up on an older one.
Don
Ok, can you show me a worked example with your new formula using real world
figures?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
30 Jun 2005 12:48:29 PM |
|
|
Don1 wrote:
Would physics be any different?
Don
It would not since w/g = f/a.
The 'm' in F=ma is called the "inertial mass", the 'M' in W=Mg is
called the "gravitational mass".
A body in free space with only gravity acting (in the newtonian regime)
means that the net force acting on it is its weight.
F = W
ma = Mg
a = M/m g ----- (1)
Now from (1) it's obvious that if all bodies fall at the same rate,
then M/m must be a constant.
It has been *experimentally verified* (by Galileo, Rolan Eotvos, etc)
that M/m is indeed a constant. This is called the "weak equivalence
principle".
By consequence of the weak equivalence principle, *all* bodies must
fall at the same rate and this is called the "universality of
free-fall".
Now, that M/m = 1 is done by choosing the units for physical quantities
appropriately. This does *NOT* mean that M and m are the same
fundamental entity, only that they are functionally equivalent.
In General Relativity, Einstein postulates that M and m are *the same*
fundamental entity. This is called the "strong equivalence principle".
Einstein came about this by realizing that you can't distinguish
between inertial and gravitational acceleration. The strong equivalence
principle combined with SR derives all of General Relativity.
Einstein's strong equivalence principle appears to be experimentally
right thus far.
I hope this clears up _all_ your questions about mass and weight and
how they are defined.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass? |
29 Jun 2005 11:00:09 PM |
|
|
In sci.math, Don1
<dcshead@charter.net>
wrote
on 29 Jun 2005 18:57:54 -0700
<1120096674.395333.33750@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Would physics be any different?
Don
What about T/(gd), where T is the torque, g is the acceleration
of gravity, and d is the distance between the pivot-point and
the hang point of a pan of a pan scale?
HINT HINT
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
