G
Gene Nygaard
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
I can only assume that your silence signals agreement,
I'd say you have another guess coming.
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
I can only assume that your silence signals agreement,
---
Amazing how you just keep raising the bar! Just like that, the old nyg
is 20dB down from where it was yesterday!
Once again, the litany, since maybe if you hear it enough it'll break
through the thick skull of yours:
1. Scales don't measure mass, they measure weight.
2. Weight is not mass, weight is the force mass exerts due to the
acceleration of gravity.
And, even though I shouldn't, I'll cast you a few pearls:
1. A one kilogram mass doesn't weigh one kilogram, it weighs 9.8
newtons.
2. A weight of one newton is equal to a weight of approximately 3.6
avoirdupois ounces.
3. A weight of one newton is equal to a weight of approximately 3.28
Troy ounces.
And, a treat I'm sure you'll enjoy from Mrs. Govoni Vogel's little book:
QUOTE
OUNCE TROY
==========
How to denote "ounce troy" as other "U.S. weights":
"One ounce troy" is equal to:
480 grains 20dwt 24 scruples
8 drams 17.554 29 dr avdp 0.068 571 43 lbs avdp
1.097 143 oz avdp 0.083 333 333 lbs troy
12 oz troy = 1 lbs tr or is equal to: 240 dwt
END QUOTE
Announcement. Effective July 1, 1959, all calibrations
in the U.S. customary system of weights and measures carried
out by the National Bureau of Standards will continue to be
based upon metric measurement standards and except for the
U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey as noted below, will be made
in terms of the following exact equivalences and
appropriate multiples and submultiples:
1 yard = 0.9144 meter
pound (avoirdupois) = 0.453 592 37 kilogram
Federal Register of July 1, 1959, F.R. Doc. 59-5442; Filed, June 30,
1959; 8:45 a.m.,
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:37:00 -0600, Gene Nygaard <[email protected]>
did his usual song and dance about 'credentials' this and 'the law' that
and a little song and dance about an ambiguity which doesn't exist
except in the minds of the confused, and wound up his act with:
Which indicates that governments which decree that the value of pi
should be set equal to three have no business making proclamations about
the congruence of weight and mass.
About what we'd expect from a clueless talking hat, one who has given
us numerous demonstrations that he is so fucking dumb he cannot even
figure out that the word "dumb" can have more than one different
meaning, just as many other words do.
In case you've missed it the dozen or so times I've pointed it out to
you, the "government" which came up with this common international
definition of the pound was the professional scientists of the
national standards laboratories of the following countries:
The United States of America
Canada
The United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The Republic of South Africa
Australia
New Zealand
In the United States, all that was required was the quoted official
notice of regulatory action in the Federal Register, since Congress
had had the sense a few decades earlier to delegate this authority to
the pros.
But in some other countries, this decision of the scientists also
received the endorsement of the legislators in the passing of a
statute. This happened with the Parliaments of both Canada and the
U.K. for example:
U.K.: Weights and Measures Act of 1963
Canada: Weights and Measures Act of 1953 (now, would you like to
take any bets as to whether or not those legislators received any
assistance from their native home-grown scientists in adopting this
definition six years before the rest of the world did?)
ents.com> wrote (in said:Geez, Gene,
You ask me for references, I give you references which you lambaste
until you finally come to realize that they're valid, then you
grudgingly accept them.
You ask me to relate one quantity to another for you, I relate one
quantity to another for you and all you do is complain.
You use the language incorrectly and I graciously correct you in order
that your communications might eventually become less ambiguous and what
do I get? Abuse. Why? because you revel in the ambiguity so that you
can blather on, ad nauseam, for volumes when a mere sentence would be
sufficient to convey the paucity of meaning associated with your
diatribes.
I have 200 unexpired articles in this thread, and I've tried to debate
with Mr Nygaard before. I don't think he'll EVER give up, and the thread
has gone a long way from the original 'What is the SI unit of weight?',
although it hasn't deviated anywhere near as much as some threads do.
The last time the Newton was mentioned was about 6 months ago, or does
it just seem like that?
I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
I have 200 unexpired articles in this thread, and I've tried to debate
with Mr Nygaard before. I don't think he'll EVER give up, and the thread
has gone a long way from the original 'What is the SI unit of weight?',
although it hasn't deviated anywhere near as much as some threads do.
The last time the Newton was mentioned was about 6 months ago, or does
it just seem like that?
---
Geez, Gene,
You ask me for references, I give you references which you lambaste
until you finally come to realize that they're valid, then you
grudgingly accept them.
You ask me to relate one quantity to another for you, I relate one
quantity to another for you and all you do is complain.
You use the language incorrectly and I graciously correct you in order
that your communications might eventually become less ambiguous and what
do I get? Abuse.
Why? because you revel in the ambiguity so that you
can blather on, ad nauseam, for volumes when a mere sentence would be
sufficient to convey the paucity of meaning associated with your
diatribes.
What you don't seem to want to come to grips with, because you'd have to
admit that you made a mistake, is that in the scientific world the
kilogram is not a unit of weight and a pound is not a unit of mass.
It's really so simple to verify (just look in _any_ physics text) that
your seeming reluctance to take that step and report your findings makes
me think that you actually _want_ to feign ignorance for the purpose of
continuing your grandstanding.
Governments and their committees be damned, a kilogram remains a unit of
mass and a pound remains a unit of weight regardless of legislation.
You can play semantic games if you want to, and try to excuse your
pigheadedness by bleating "ambiguity" in an effort to cover up your
dishonesty, but facts remain facts, and those facts are that the
kilogram is a unit of mass and the pound is a unit of weight regardless
of how much you'd like for them not to be.
End of story.
I suppose that you also think that those heathen tribesmen on the
British Isles over 1000 years ago, when they first started using the
word "weight" in the way we still use it in commerce today, made an
ERROR in inventing this word. How in the world do you suppose they
could be so stupid as to be unable to discern the God-given word they
were supposed to invent for this purpose, i.e. the synonym for it
which is used in physics jargon today, "mass"? Damn those
missionaries, not having enough sense to get there in time to convert
them before they did something so stupid!
Then, along came Newton who basically figured the
whole thing out and turned the world right-side up somewhere between 317
and 335 years ago.
Long before him though, the Romans had the "Uncia" and the "Libra"
(which was equal to 12 unciae) as measures of _weight_, of course, since
they had no clue about mass.
They used the balance (which they also
called the libra) to measure unknown weights by comparison with accepted
standards, of course, and since they knew nothing of gravity there the
matter rested for a long time.
You may notice that "uncia" is very similar to "ounce" and "lb" seems to
be a contraction from "libra", so it seems likely that somebody borrowed
from somebody else; but no matter, the point is that these were, and
still are, units of weight, not mass.
Even more interesting, I think,
is that there is less than a 10% difference between the troy ounce and
the avoirdupois ounce, which leads me to believe that once upon a time
they were the same thing and that the variation in their weight is due
to their being "stepped on" continually for hundreds of years.
I'd love to deal with your concluding comments at this time, but for
now you will have to settle for searching Usenet for the several times
I and others have discussed it in the past. We have other unfinished
business to deal with first, even in addition to that which is
mentioned above. You still need to provide us with the official
"physics" standard for a pound. You still need to acknowledge that
the pound is used as a unit of mass in physics.
It was interesting to note that we even have John Fields resorting to
the pontifications of a committee of government bureaucrats. What
TweetyBird whispered that URL into your ear? I've seen your research
skills--you didn't find it yourself. If you were capable of that, you
would have also found the "physics" standard for a pound.
---
You need to get over the idea that I "need" to comply with any of your
demands, in particular searching Usenet for examples of your past idiocy
and going on your wild goose chases. As a matter of fact, I don't even
need to acknowledge your worthless existence and you're just fortunate
that I've taken time out of my life to try to make you a little less
stupid than you were before.
Unfortunately, your pigheadedness and obvious inability to admit to your
personal shortcomings obviously makes learning, for you, a painful
experience in that when you're presented with something which is new to
you, you either have to deny that it's true in order to keep from
feeling indebted to whoever presented you with the knowledge or pretend
that you already knew it. In this case, you can't pretend that you knew
there was a difference between mass and weight because you got busted
early-on for saying they were the same thing, and now you can't get out
of it so you have to play the "No, it's not" game. Or something like
that, anyway. But the point is, it doesn't matter. You've already
proved yourself to be a liar and a troublemaker intent on
self-aggrandisement, so nothing you say can be taken at face value.
---
---
You've seen nothing but what you want to see and made sure you had
blinders on when the light got a little too bright for you.
I certainly have no compunctions about using information, wherever it
comes from, if it makes sense.
As for the URL, methinks you're a little upset because you didn't
stumble across it first;
after all, that does seem to be the way you do
_your_ "research"... Find it in a URL somewhere and parrot it as if it
were gospel without even stopping to check it for accuracy or salience.
I've already given you references which anyone without an axe to grind
would find adequate to support a change in position, (even edicts from
authorities which you can't question)
You really are delusional, aren't you.
Gee, thanks for your altruistic concern for my well-being.
I'm still so stupid that I still don't understand your claim that the
_official_ worldwide definition of the pound applies only to
"sausages" and that that definition does not apply to physics, where
God has apparently hardwired the knowledge of what a pound really is
into our brains, since you are unable to show me any other official
standard.
Of course, you don't "have" to do anything, John. You don't have to
participate in this thread. You don't have to have anybody believe
your claims about "sausages" and physics. It's just that if you
really expect people to believe the preposterous claims you've been
making, you might have to back them up with a little help from some
reasonable authority.
You are a dishonest, habitual liar, thinking that bluff and bravado
will carry you though. That may have worked for you in the past, but
that time for getting away with that is up. I have your number.
Of course, you could still prove me wrong. So let's review how you
could do that:
Suppose you tell me how a physicist is going to know whether or not
she has a "pound."
Methinks you have that all ass-backwards. Here's the way it should
be:
I've already given you references which anyone without an axe to grind
would find adequate to support a change in position, (even edicts from
authorities which you can't question)
(note that we now have a different person saying the same words)
I see you get zero on the subtle-O-meter. The reference to sausages was
to "laws and sausages". Go back and read it again and see if it makes
sense to you this time.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!
So, in other words, you totally *butchered* an attempt to play on the
familiar quote,
The less people know about how sausages and laws
are made, the better they'll sleep at night.
-- Otto von Bismarck
Why does it not surprise me that you attempt was so inept?
Clueless as you are, there is no danger whatsoever of your ever losing
a wink of sleep on this account.
Why don't you just fill us in with what you know about how the U.S.
law you were referring to, the one defining a pound as a unit of mass
equal to 0.45359237 kg, was made. Who was involved in that decision?
What were the alternatives? What were the politics involved?
I neither know, nor care, how a "law" that defines any amount of weight
as a unit of mass was made, and pursuing the details of that misguided
legislation is something I'm not interested in doing because no amount
of legislation can make a pound a unit of mass. Ergo, why should I care
which fucking idiot declared that the Earth was flat or that the moon
was made out of green cheese and which group of fucking morons went
along with it?
I neither know, nor care, how a "law" that defines any amount of weight
as a unit of mass was made, and pursuing the details of that misguided
legislation is something I'm not interested in doing because no amount
of legislation can make a pound a unit of mass. Ergo, why should I care
which fucking idiot declared that the Earth was flat or that the moon
was made out of green cheese and which group of fucking morons went
along with it?
Yes, John, I'm damn proud of the company I keep, proud to be a "fucking
idiot" or "fucking moron" or whatever you choose to call me--you see, I
know full well that this tells everyone much more about you than about
me.