Jeffrey Gauch wrote: > > gandg@snet.net wrote: > > > In a previous article, RC <rc@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk> writes: > > >In article <01bfabdd$d185eb40$LocalHost@default>, Donald G. Shead > > ><u10889@snet.net> writes > > >snip.exe > > >>It seems pretty simple to me, but then; what do I know? > > >The worst thing about your posts is that they are boring. I think the > > >metric system elucidates the structure of reality better than the > > >imperial system. > > > > I think with just a slight change of name; to centimeter-dyne-second, this > > Length-Force-Time system could apply to what you call the more elucidating > > metric system: But save your energy, even the newton (N) is too small to > > qualify as a convenient unit of force: Why do you suppose the kilogram; not > > the newton is used as a counter-weight! > > Just one thing. The kilogram is about 1/10th of a Newton. If a Newton is too > small a kilogram is even smaller.
You've got them the wrong way round. 1Kg = 10N. :)
They also measure different quantities so that last statement is only true-ish down here on earth. -- Paul Richards (Pauldoo) - http://www.pauldoo.co.uk
I've not run any Microsoft code for 148 days. How about you?
