Re: Nobody noes it _yet_

From: Eric Gisse (fseggNOSPAM_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 07/30/04 

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 05:25:03 -0800

On 30 Jul 2004 04:52:04 -0700, dcshead@charter.net (Donald G. Shead)
wrote:

>j.schoenfeld@programmer.net (John Schoenfeld) wrote in message news:<a98beaaa.0407291712.312e9f79@posting.google.com>...
>CUT<
>> >
>> > I don't think anybody knows _yet_, the difference between Galileo's
>> > "rate of freefall" [s/t^2 = 16'/sec^2] and Newton's "acceleration of
>> > free fall" [2s/t^2 = 32'/sec^2].
>>
>> What is your purpose, Shead?
>
>Well it started out to simply show that physics has become entangled
>with all sorts of loose ends because the metric system made artifacts
>for weights that were to be used to calibrate weight scales
>internationally.
>
>These artifacts - the gram and kilogram - were to be the standard
>units of mass, and the fundamental units of the metric system were
>chosen to be: Length; Mass, and Time.
>
>I've been trying to argue that the fundamental units of physics are:
>Length; Force [& weight], and Time; with mass being a ratio of force,
>divided the acceleration that it causes; which ratio [f/a] is equal to
>the weight [w] of an object; body, or mass of matter, divided by the
>acceleration [g] at which it will free fall at the location of the
>scale on which it is weighed: That the measure of mass is inertia [m =
>f/a = w/g].
>
>None of you will have it, and keep knocking me down! So in my best
>interests; I think I'll "cool it" for a while;^)

Your arguments have been rebuked many times over the years.

Your infantile notions about velocity and acceleration were replaced
centuries ago by calculus.

You keep posting nonsense, and you ignore the responses.
You ask questions, and you ignore the responses.

Why don't you buy a book on calculus and leave us alone for a few
years while you come to terms with it?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nobody noes it _yet_
    ... >Well it started out to simply show that physics has become entangled ... >I've been trying to argue that the fundamental units of physics are: ... and you ignore the responses. ... Why don't you buy a book on calculus and leave us alone for a few ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Nobody noes it _yet_
    ... >>with all sorts of loose ends because the metric system made artifacts ... and the fundamental units of the metric system were ... > centuries ago by calculus. ... and you ignore the responses. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Nobody noes it _yet_
    ... >>with all sorts of loose ends because the metric system made artifacts ... and the fundamental units of the metric system were ... > centuries ago by calculus. ... and you ignore the responses. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Chemistry with calculus???
    ... I do this by reading college texts on various ... divided into those for that employ calculus, ... I had no trouble finding introductory physics and ... finding an introductory chemistry textbook that does. ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: Science Mags top 125 unanswered questions
    ... yet i saies that bosons are much less *substantiated experimantally* ... who deludes himself that he has some soung physics sense.... ... how much in scince is experiments and how much of it is maths?? ... > problem with calculus being inherent in the science, ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast