|
|
Re: Introducing the United (fps) System
Posted:
Apr 23, 2000 10:20 AM
|
|
Ben Kraines <bkraines@erols.com> wrote in article
<8dtk2c$h4o$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> i'm going to refrain from tearing apart all you said, but i do have a few
questions (maybe its just me).
>
> 1) What is your point?
> 2) What are you changing?
> 3) Why??
>
> --ben
>
Hi Ben, I'm Donald: Thanks for not tearing everything apart; yet;-) It's
the first thing everybody else does.
My _point_ is that I've found the concepts of mass and weight to be
_inextricably_ confused! No one else seems to think so. They don't seem to
see any problem; they don't believe that even if there is; it's
significant: I claim that it's _the_ major problem facing physics today;
especially since theoretical physics is born of ficticious properties that
are attributed to 'masses' of matter.
What I'm trying to _do_; _why_ I'm exhorting to a 'united system of weights
and measures' is to show that the mechanical phenomena of motion and
weighing in basic physics can be worked out _without_ the concept of mass.
That the basic fundamental concepts of mechanics are: Length (distance in
Space), Force (the physical thrusts exerted by Matter), and Duration
(periods of continuously passing Time.
Using 'common' _units_, the foot and the mile for length, the pound for
force, and the second and hour for time, is that I'm attempting to show
that the ordinary mechanical phenomena of motion and weighing in basic
physics can be more simply understood and worked out.
You understand of course that this system doesn't apply to the relativity
of length and the bending and warping of space-time and mass into such
contortions as black holes and such, because that's a lot of baloney.
Now, 'start your ripping':
--
Donald G. Shead
Such a tangled web we weaved when first we practiced to perceive.
|
|
