OT: Why the US will never go metric....

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 22:21:21 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry <pomerado@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Jun 16, 9:30 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:12:03 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:30:21 +0000 (UTC), Tim Watts <t...@dionic.net
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:17:41 -0700, VWWall <vw...@large.invalid> wibbled:

Tim Watts wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:31:13 -0700, StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
Zarathus...@thusspoke.org> wibbled:

  At least we are not measuring things by 'curling stones' or the
  like.

It is still possible AFAIK here to go to a small time brewery and buy a
firkin (8 gallons) of beer. Or a barrel (4 firkins). If you're  areal
pissartist, you'd probably want a hogshead, butt or tun though.

And the answer to: "Are you getting any lately?" has always been given
in furlongs per fortnight!

Incidentally, that brings up a question:

When you americans talk of "a butt load of <blah>" - does that derive
from the "butt" as in 144 gallons? I always mentally associated it with
butt=ass - but the former makes more sense...

That sounds like a meaning shift due to forgetting larger units of
measure in place of more familiar ones (55 gal barrel).

You mean like the 40gal oil barrel?

42 gallons.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that one.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:08:10 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:50:38 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:43:32 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:39:05 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Tim Watts wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:32:09 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wibbled:

My Vermont house, other than the living and family rooms (cathedral
ceilings) had 7' 2" ceilings; definitely not standard.

This first floor of this house has 9' ceilings and the two bedrooms
upstairs 8', with the great room 18', and higher. ;-)

You should try my village, which dates back to 1066 - in fact the Battle
of Hastings was fought and shamefully lost (especially when you visit the
field and see the massive tactical advantage Harold had), 3 miles down
the road in a town called "Battle" (hmm) and not actually in Hastings
which is rather further down the road.

I digress...

Ceilings you can brush your head on and 5' front doors or less on some of
the old timber framed houses.


You sublet from a Leprechaun?

Someone with DimBulb's stature.

I am tall enough to beat knots onto the top of your skull, boy.

Not.


Not even in his hooker heels.
Click to expand...
Not even the ones he got out of mommy's hamper?
 
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:21:03 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

No "scale" 'reports weight in Newtons'.

AlwaysWrong is *ALWAYS* wrong.

http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/ohaus/pull-type-scale-large.jpg
Click to expand...
The Newton side of the scale does not report weight, it reports force,
and that is against a non-linear, uncalibrated spring.

It MIGHT be calibrated in the vertical against gravity to give a weight
reading, but the Newton side declares force, and that is not calibrated
accurately, especially in a plane other than vertical.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:40:07 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Yeah, but I doubt they've bettered it by two orders of magnitude in three
years. It really is a tough nut.
Click to expand...
Except that a dopey fucking retard like you wouldn't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Van%C3%AD%C4%8Dek
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:49:37 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Turns out that, seen from outside a uniform-density sphere, the sphere
acts as if all its mass was concentrated at the center.

I hear you, just trying to get my head around the calculus.
Click to expand...

I think that he is wrong, and you couldn't wrap your head around
anything other than the inside of your ass.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:50:46 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

There are SEVERAL density changes, you stupid fucktards.

Irrelevant, as always. Go back to mommy's hamper, AlwaysWrong.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely relevant, you retarded POS.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:52:37 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

You're illiterate, as always. It certainly does depend on a uniform gravity
field.
Click to expand...
Tell me where that is missing from the surface of any spheroid.

The only place a balance fails to work is in space or free fall.

You ain't real bright. It is a balance. It requires gravity, but is
not tied to it for calibration of the instrument, like a spring scale is.
 
On Jun 17, 3:20 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:26:07 -0700 (PDT), George Herold





gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Jun 17, 1:06 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:08:10 -0700 (PDT), George Herold

gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
we can treat it as linear
and get the right number.

No. You get NEAR the right number. You no longer get a "reliable"
reading, regardless of the number the instrument reports.

I'm done with you.

Go pester some other news group.

George H.

I suppose at some point it becomes obvious that some posters aren't
just nasty ignorant SOBs, they are in fact mentally deficient for one
reason or another. If we met them in person, it would be obvious. On
usenet, it's harder to tell.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...
Oh I like discussing things with people, And honestly I'm thrilled
when I'm wrong, 'cause it means that I've learned something. But A*
Lever seems like a lost cause. I tend not to read any threads when I
see his name attached... and lately it seems like he's all over
everything on SED. A big gooey oil slick spoiling our beautiful
threads.

George H.

* A does not stand for Archimedes.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:59:01 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:21:03 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

No "scale" 'reports weight in Newtons'.

AlwaysWrong is *ALWAYS* wrong.

http://www.oldwillknottscales.com/ohaus/pull-type-scale-large.jpg



The Newton side of the scale does not report weight, it reports force,
and that is against a non-linear, uncalibrated spring.
Click to expand...
AlwaysWrong still insists on being wrong. How stupid can you get, DimBulb?
It MIGHT be calibrated in the vertical against gravity to give a weight
reading, but the Newton side declares force, and that is not calibrated
accurately, especially in a plane other than vertical.
Click to expand...
Idiot.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:01:57 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:49:37 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Turns out that, seen from outside a uniform-density sphere, the sphere
acts as if all its mass was concentrated at the center.

I hear you, just trying to get my head around the calculus.


I think that he is wrong, and you couldn't wrap your head around
anything other than the inside of your ass.
Click to expand...
I know you've been trying (very trying) to conceal it, but your scat fetish is
showing through again, DimBulb. Now put mommy's computer away and go play in
her hamper, like a good little DimBulb.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:02:46 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:50:46 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

There are SEVERAL density changes, you stupid fucktards.

Irrelevant, as always. Go back to mommy's hamper, AlwaysWrong.


It is absolutely relevant, you retarded POS.
Click to expand...
Always wrong, AlwaysWrong.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:04:45 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:52:37 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

You're illiterate, as always. It certainly does depend on a uniform gravity
field.

Tell me where that is missing from the surface of any spheroid.
Click to expand...
I know it's a tough request, but try reading, AlwaysWrong.
The only place a balance fails to work is in space or free fall.
Click to expand...
Nope. Wrong as always, AlwaysWrong.

You ain't real bright. It is a balance. It requires gravity, but is
not tied to it for calibration of the instrument, like a spring scale is.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:44:28 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:26:12 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


I know what mass means, bacause it's an SI unit. Weight means whatever
you care to define it to mean.


But, it is NOT, nor has it ever been, what you have been defining it to
mean.
Click to expand...
I haven't defined it. Please, you go ahead and define "weight" for us.

John
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:46:50 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:26:12 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

What matters is that 1 N of force accelerates 1 kg of mass by 1
m/sec^2.

Your problem is that you actually inferred that those numbers carried
through to any location on the planet, until you were proven (or shown)
that you were wrong. They do not. You lose... again.
Click to expand...
Those numbers work anywhere in the solar system.

John
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:25:27 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:01:57 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:49:37 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Turns out that, seen from outside a uniform-density sphere, the sphere
acts as if all its mass was concentrated at the center.

I hear you, just trying to get my head around the calculus.


I think that he is wrong, and you couldn't wrap your head around
anything other than the inside of your ass.

I know you've been trying (very trying) to conceal it, but your scat fetish is
showing through again, DimBulb. Now put mommy's computer away and go play in
her hamper, like a good little DimBulb.
Click to expand...
Take your head out of your ass, and do not return to the group until
you do.

Comply, and we will be sure to never see you again.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:36:54 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:46:50 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:26:12 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

What matters is that 1 N of force accelerates 1 kg of mass by 1
m/sec^2.

Your problem is that you actually inferred that those numbers carried
through to any location on the planet, until you were proven (or shown)
that you were wrong. They do not. You lose... again.

Those numbers work anywhere in the solar system.
Click to expand...
....by definition. ;-)
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:27:04 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

You ain't real bright. It is a balance. It requires gravity, but is
not tied to it for calibration of the instrument, like a spring scale is.

Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely relevant.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:23:27 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:32:07 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:20:41 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:45:55 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:26:30 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:42:40 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Jun 16, 7:11 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:54:58 -0700 (PDT), George Herold





gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:55 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:31:53 -0700, Archimedes' Lever

OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:05:15 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:

Cool, I have to scribble numbers on the paper though.  6400 feet is
about 2000m, the Earth is about 6E6 m in radius, Since we only want a
small change I can ignore the r^2 stuff and just multiple the ratio by
2.  something like 4 parts out of 6,000.  much smaller than the
divisions on your scale.

 No you cannot.  What makes you think that G decreases (or
increases)linearly?

I doesn't!

John

for small enough changes it is linear!

---
Not if you take at least 3 samples.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What? if the change is a part in 1,000, then the second order
correction is at the one out of 10^6 level. John L's going to stop 1/2
between SF and Truckee and weigh himself with six figure acurracy?

---
Probably not, but that's not what I had in mind.

Here: Let's say that we have an exquisitely sensitive gravimeter
located on the surface of the earth, somewhere, and that we measure
and record the stregth of the gravitational field (g1) there.

Then, let's locate the gravimeter one meter above its starting
position and take another reading (g2) there.

Now, lets subtract g2 from g1 and call the difference d1.

Finally, let's take another reading (g3) 2 meters above the starting
point, subtract g3 from g2 and call that difference d2.

Voila! We now notice that since d2 isn't equal to d1, the rate of
change of the strength of the gravitational field with respect to
distance isn't constant, so it isn't linear.

Now, using only two readings, we can't really infer much about the
field, but by using three or more we can, and we can make the
distances between those points smaller and smaller until the
gravimeter runs into its noise floor.

With superconducting gravimeters being capable of measuring down to
1 nanogal, and the Earth's gradient being around 3.1 ľgal/meter, one
would think that any nonlinearity would be able to be easily seen with
3100 measuring points available per meter.

The fly in the ointment is that the gradient decreases from 3.083
ľgal/m at sea level to 2.638 ľgal/m at 340 km, which is a change in
gradient of 345 ľgal/340km, or 1.014 ľgal/km.

That means that even with the best gravimeters available, the
measurement points would have to be at least 1 km apart to detect the
nonlinearity.

Tethered balloon?

No need, and the good news is that somebody's already measured the
gradient, found it changed with equal increments of altitude, and
therefore proved it's not linear.



Isaac Newton demonstrated that gravitational attraction goes as 1/d^2.
It explains the orbits of the planets.

---
Yes, but I think he said 1/r^2.

In two spheres mutually gravitating each towards the other if the
matter in places on all sides round about and equi-distant from the
centres is similar, the weight of either sphere towards the other will
be reciprocally as the square of the distance between their centres.

-- Principia Book 1 "De motu corporum" by Newton
(translated into English by Motte, 1848)

---
OK, but isn't it written:

G m1 m2
Fg = ---------
r˛

?
Click to expand...
Some people might, but they have to define what they mean by "r" or
"d" or whatever they use. In Russian or Greek or Arabic or Japanese,
they might use different symbols. Apparently Newton used the Latin
text word for "distance", and expressed the force relation in prose.
Modern mathematical notation wasn't used in his day. He invented
calculus, but lots of people came along later and reformulated the way
it looks today. Same thing happened with Maxwell's equations: he
described them, but others put then into our modern forms.

Good book about that: The Maxwellians, by Bruce Hunt.

John
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:36:09 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:44:28 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:26:12 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


I know what mass means, bacause it's an SI unit. Weight means whatever
you care to define it to mean.


But, it is NOT, nor has it ever been, what you have been defining it to
mean.

I haven't defined it.
Click to expand...
No. You *could not* define it.

Please, you go ahead and define "weight" for us.
Click to expand...
You need to do your own homework, dumbfuck.
 
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:36:54 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:46:50 -0700, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:26:12 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

What matters is that 1 N of force accelerates 1 kg of mass by 1
m/sec^2.

Your problem is that you actually inferred that those numbers carried
through to any location on the planet, until you were proven (or shown)
that you were wrong. They do not. You lose... again.

Those numbers work anywhere in the solar system.

John
Click to expand...
Nope. Any circumstance where an atmosphere is involved changes that.

You should have stated "in a vacuum".

Such a mass is accelerated at that rate only when no force is applied
against that force. In an atmosphere, it fails. It is a different
formula that also considers air density and affect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top