|
|
Re: Introducing the United (fps) System
Posted:
Apr 24, 2000 7:33 PM
|
|
In a previous article, "Ben Kraines" <bkraines1@hotmail.com> writes:
Snip<
>
>Don--
>Nobody disagress that w/g is constant for any given mass. Why do you insist
on complicating matters by adding g to equations where
>it doesn't matter? i'll append a previous post to which you failed to
respond.
>
Ben g is one of the most important variables of force and motion to come down
the pike! Any formula for them is incomplete without it! Metrics ignored it,
hoping it would go away because it complicates their nice neat system of
tens; but it can't and won't!
The reason I've 'failed to respond' to the post that you've appended, is that
I didn't get it: Thanks for doing so.
>--ben
>
>
>"Donald G. Shead" <u10889@snet.net> wrote in message
news://01bfad2e$c5eb5b60$LocalHost@default...
Snip<
>
>Hi Don, it's Ben again.
>
>So let me get this straight... you're trying to simplify physics by replacing
mass with weight??
No, I'm trying to show that mass isn't fundamental: That mass (m) is equal
(equivalent) to the ratios w/g = f/a! This makes mass superfluous because w/g
= f/a is a complete formula; a complete equation that stands on its own!
Also: By transposition of m from m = w/g = f/a: we get w/mg = f/ma: From which
m cancels!
Do you consider weight more
>'basic' than mass, or just that the concept of mass is just faulty?? For the
very introductory physics student (the only one who
>would always be dealing with a constant g=9.8 m/s^2=32 ft/s^2), I don't think
eliminating mass would simplify matters. Momentum
>would now be p=wv/g. Does g play any role in the situation?
If not you'd just have p=wv; which is incomplete!
>When I first derived equations, I'd ask, what does force vary with?
You should have answered yourself: That (net) force (f) varies in proportion
to the acceleration (a) that it causes; just as the weight (force) exerted by
a body varies in proportion to the free fall acceleration (g) at the (time
and) location where it is exerted.
>Mass and accelleration make sense... thus F=kma (k happens to be defined to
be 1). It would be wrong to think that force varies the
>earth's gravitational pull. My main problem isn't that you define things in
terms of weight, but everything must in turn be defined
>in terms of g.
>
Your sense has you inextricably confused: Net force varies in proportion to
the acceleration that it causes [f/t = inertial mass]: Just as _weight_
(force) varies in proportion to the _free fall_ acceleration at the time and
location where it applies, so that [w/g = gravitational mass].
For any given mass (object and/or body) of accumulated matter: f/t = w/g!
>
>| 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.
>
>Black holes, warping of space, and length/time dialation are just theories,
so any suspicion is understandable. But they all stem
>empirical fact that the relative speed of light is constant. Do you disagree
with this too?
Light's way too fast for me, I'll keep my suspicious mind open to whatever
turns up.
>BTW, nobody in science _likes_ the idea of action at a distance--thats where
ideas like string theory come into play.
>
Yeah, ideas based on the magical properties of mass attracting other mass and
its ability to bend that other theoretical concept space-time.
>regards
>--ben
>
snip<
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free Usenet News via the Web -----
----- http://newsone.net/ -- Discussions on every subject. -----
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email abuse@newsone.net
|
|
