instability

  • 146 Replies
  • 11754 Views
*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: instability
« Reply #120 on: January 23, 2013, 04:41:37 AM »

You should probably both try using google before making fools of yourselves. Weight is a vector. It has magnitude (quantity) and direction (down).

Weight is a vector. Ounce is a unit of measure. The W you used in your formula is the magnitude of weight, and it is a scalar. The g you used in your formula is also the magnitude of an acceleration, and it is a scalar.

In formulas, the vectors are shown in bold and with a small arrow on top. Since it is difficult to draw an arrow without a formula editor or something, I guess the bold symbols must be enough.

But you did insist on your original claim that "an ounce is a vector". If you want to get all riled up, then first show that an ounce is a vector, and then tell me how stupid I am.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 05:49:31 AM by RealScientist »

Re: instability
« Reply #121 on: January 23, 2013, 05:52:23 AM »
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the unit of mass. For the unit of force, see Pound-force. For the unit of volume, see Fluid ounce. For all other uses, see Ounce (disambiguation).
The ounce (abbreviated oz, from the former Italian word onza, now spelled oncia; apothecary symbol: ℥) is a unit of mass with several definitions, the most commonly used of which is equal to approximately 28 grams. The ounce is used in a number of different systems, including those of mass that form part of the United States customary, and imperial, systems. The size of an ounce varies between systems. The most commonly used ounces today are the international avoirdupois ounce and the international troy ounce.

Re: instability
« Reply #122 on: January 23, 2013, 06:16:11 AM »
I know this has probably been answered before, but how do planes fly in UA? Shouldn't the Earth accelerate into them?  :-\

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: instability
« Reply #123 on: January 23, 2013, 06:20:22 AM »
I still wanna see some sorta scientist agree with Thorks conclusion that an ounce is a vector quantity
The problem is not quite one for a scientist, it is more the subject for a mathematician. It is also a problem with history and poor school education.

"Ounce" is a unit of measure. It is not a vector (that is, the combination of a magnitude and a direction).

Until sometime in late 19th century or so there was usually no need to make a distinction between mass and weight. Almost nobody was thinking about weight in other planets, for example, and there were very few who could measure the difference in local gravitational pull between different locations on Earth. This created the wrong assumption that weight and mass were the same, and worse, that "weight" is the right word for what your bathroom scale shows. But the bad use of the word "weight" is a language problem, not a physics problem. Still you will find this wrong use many dictionaries.

In English the use makes the meaning, and that means that "bad", for example, means "good" or "awesome" if Michael Jackson uses "bad" in this way in a song. But in physics, incorrect use does not change the meaning of a word. Mass is, in essence (and in everyday circumstances), the number of protons plus the number of neutrons of some object, and it is usually measured in kilograms, pounds, ounces, troy ounces or so. Weight and force are defined as the combination of a mass and an acceleration, and are measured in Newtons, pounds-force,  kilograms-force and others, but not in any of the units for mass.

But saying that a unit of measure is a vector is something that can only come from Thork.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39594
Re: instability
« Reply #124 on: January 23, 2013, 06:20:49 AM »
im not sure how you came to that conclusion
Because I know what shape the earth is. Its a massive advantage in debates like these. I need only point out the obvious to win.
Then I take it that you no longer believe that celestial gravitation is responsible for measured variations of g?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: instability
« Reply #125 on: January 23, 2013, 06:30:32 AM »
I know this has probably been answered before, but how do planes fly in UA? Shouldn't the Earth accelerate into them?  :-\
This has been answered before, and you should not place your question inside an unrelated thread.

Please do not continue this question here. Anyhow, a quick answer: there is no problem with planes flying in the magical FE because air is also accelerating up at 9.81 m/s/s. And airplanes are creating lift against this accelerating air, so their total force upwards is due to the acceleration of air plus whatever acceleration they can get from the lift on the wings and other body parts.

Also, the Equivalence Principle states that acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity locally, so whatever works in an Earth with gravity, also works in an accelerating Earth as long as the whole experiment occurs in a relatively small place.

Satellites are another story, which you should look in other already existing threads.

?

Thork

Re: instability
« Reply #126 on: January 23, 2013, 12:27:39 PM »
Weight is a vector. Ounce is a unit of measure. The W you used in your formula is the magnitude of weight, and it is a scalar. The g you used in your formula is also the magnitude of an acceleration, and it is a scalar.
Are you drunk? Weight = mass * gravity. Weight and gravity are vectors. An acceleration is never a scalar because it always has direction. Here. Have another look at Nasa's helpful diagram. Please note where weight and acceleration are.



In formulas, the vectors are shown in bold and with a small arrow on top. Since it is difficult to draw an arrow without a formula editor or something, I guess the bold symbols must be enough.

But you did insist on your original claim that "an ounce is a vector". If you want to get all riled up, then first show that an ounce is a vector, and then tell me how stupid I am.
We are talking about troy ounces as gold is sold in troy ounces. As you were shown several times (with sources I might add) a troy ounce is a troy WEIGHT. And therefore it is a vector.

"Ounce" is a unit of measure. It is not a vector (that is, the combination of a magnitude and a direction).
A troy ounce, the measurement relevant to this thread is a vector. Stop mis-informing people and spreading the ignorance.

Until sometime in late 19th century or so there was usually no need to make a distinction between mass and weight. Almost nobody was thinking about weight in other planets, for example, and there were very few who could measure the difference in local gravitational pull between different locations on Earth.
I'm sure Isaac Newton will be delighted with your assessment. Late 19th Century? Are you going to provide any sources? You make this codswallop up. Your stock is very low. You are not only ignorant of maths and physics but also brash and arrogant. Its a train-wreck of a combination as this thread is proving.

This created the wrong assumption that weight and mass were the same, and worse, that "weight" is the right word for what your bathroom scale shows. But the bad use of the word "weight" is a language problem, not a physics problem. Still you will find this wrong use many dictionaries.
No, it is misunderstood because a great many people like you cannot distinguish between a vector and a scalar.

In English the use makes the meaning, and that means that "bad", for example, means "good" or "awesome" if Michael Jackson uses "bad" in this way in a song. But in physics, incorrect use does not change the meaning of a word. Mass is, in essence (and in everyday circumstances), the number of protons plus the number of neutrons of some object, and it is usually measured in kilograms, pounds, ounces, troy ounces or so.
Do you have learning difficulties? A troy ounce is a troy weight and is most definitely a weight. Not a mass.

Weight and force are defined as the combination of a mass and an acceleration, and are measured in Newtons, pounds-force,  kilograms-force and others, but not in any of the units for mass.
Troy ounces would be another good example.

But saying that a unit of measure is a vector is something that can only come from Thork.
You aren't real scientist after all, are you? :-\
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 12:30:05 PM by Thork »

Re: instability
« Reply #127 on: January 23, 2013, 12:39:55 PM »
I think it's perhaps a little disingenuous not to consider the fact that weight is almost always talked about as a magnitude. I have yet to see a set of scales that report my 'weight' as a vector. I've never heard weight watchers talk about separate radial, zenithal and azimuthal slimmers of the week. Although I don't dispute that for dynamical calculations it does matter.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: instability
« Reply #128 on: January 23, 2013, 01:09:20 PM »
Weight is a vector.
Are you drunk? ... Weight and gravity are vectors.
So, this is the quality of your answers now?

I am not going to read the rest of your answer. But please tell me if someplace in it you are explaining how "ounce is a vector".

?

Thork

Re: instability
« Reply #129 on: January 23, 2013, 01:13:40 PM »
Weight is a vector.
Are you drunk? ... Weight and gravity are vectors.
So, this is the quality of your answers now?

I am not going to read the rest of your answer. But please tell me if someplace in it you are explaining how "ounce is a vector".
7 pages of going around in circles. You aren't up to this debate. I lost my patience with you. Read it, don't read it. I don't care any more.

Re: instability
« Reply #130 on: January 23, 2013, 01:14:28 PM »
Yes - ounce is definitely not a vector quantity. I think the problem is that its easy to forget that scales are calibrated in kg even if they measure force.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: instability
« Reply #131 on: January 23, 2013, 01:33:25 PM »
I think it's perhaps a little disingenuous not to consider the fact that weight is almost always talked about as a magnitude. I have yet to see a set of scales that report my 'weight' as a vector. I've never heard weight watchers talk about separate radial, zenithal and azimuthal slimmers of the week. Although I don't dispute that for dynamical calculations it does matter.
It is a very acceptable simplification to say "my weight is ..." instead of saying "the magnitude of my weight is ...". It would be even better, scientifically speaking, to say "right now I am pressing the floor with a force (or weight) of ..."

What is totally wrong, and comes from antique errors in the English and other languages that were never corrected, is to say that I weigh 100 kilograms, or that I weigh 220 pounds. It would be correct, according to the SI system of units, to say that I weigh 100 kilograms-force, or 220 pounds-force.

Remember, nobody cares about his weight to a precision better than 0.5%, because even if you pee you lose more than 0.1% of your weight, and if you have a good lunch you temporarily add about 0.5% to your weight. Therefore nobody cares that you are lighter in Mexico than in Helsinki.

But if you have even a wish to think as a scientist you have to correct your language and tell things as they are: if you show 100 kilograms on the scale, your mass is 100 kilograms, not your weight. Your weight is 981 Newtons or 100 kilograms-force in magnitude. You cannot do a very precise experiment without taking this into account.

And if you want to be a scientist, you will never mistake a unit of measure with a magnitude or a vector. You never mistake the measurement with the measuring equipment or scale.

Re: instability
« Reply #132 on: January 23, 2013, 01:51:17 PM »
I think it's perhaps a little disingenuous not to consider the fact that weight is almost always talked about as a magnitude. I have yet to see a set of scales that report my 'weight' as a vector. I've never heard weight watchers talk about separate radial, zenithal and azimuthal slimmers of the week. Although I don't dispute that for dynamical calculations it does matter.
It is a very acceptable simplification to say "my weight is ..." instead of saying "the magnitude of my weight is ...". It would be even better, scientifically speaking, to say "right now I am pressing the floor with a force (or weight) of ..."

What is totally wrong, and comes from antique errors in the English and other languages that were never corrected, is to say that I weigh 100 kilograms, or that I weigh 220 pounds. It would be correct, according to the SI system of units, to say that I weigh 100 kilograms-force, or 220 pounds-force.

Remember, nobody cares about his weight to a precision better than 0.5%, because even if you pee you lose more than 0.1% of your weight, and if you have a good lunch you temporarily add about 0.5% to your weight. Therefore nobody cares that you are lighter in Mexico than in Helsinki.

But if you have even a wish to think as a scientist you have to correct your language and tell things as they are: if you show 100 kilograms on the scale, your mass is 100 kilograms, not your weight. Your weight is 981 Newtons or 100 kilograms-force in magnitude. You cannot do a very precise experiment without taking this into account.

And if you want to be a scientist, you will never mistake a unit of measure with a magnitude or a vector. You never mistake the measurement with the measuring equipment or scale.

I'm pretty sure Thork doesn't want to be a scientist, a lingual gymnast maybe  :)

If he did have any scientific leaning then his attitude towards the UA would be what kind of experiment can i design and perform that would prove it, you know just like Rowbotham who at least designed an experiment and tried it to prove his hypothesis.

The simple experiment of using an accurate force scale to measure an item at the bottom of a mountain and then (without recalibrating the scale) measuring the same item again at a known height up the mountain would work. If the item continues to return the same value up the mountain then he can start to build a case for the UA.

Instead no doubt he'll just sit at home trying to make out that "a weight" is the same as "weight" instead of trying to advance FE science.
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

Re: instability
« Reply #133 on: January 23, 2013, 02:23:12 PM »
I think it's perhaps a little disingenuous not to consider the fact that weight is almost always talked about as a magnitude. I have yet to see a set of scales that report my 'weight' as a vector. I've never heard weight watchers talk about separate radial, zenithal and azimuthal slimmers of the week. Although I don't dispute that for dynamical calculations it does matter.
It is a very acceptable simplification to say "my weight is ..." instead of saying "the magnitude of my weight is ...". It would be even better, scientifically speaking, to say "right now I am pressing the floor with a force (or weight) of ..."

What is totally wrong, and comes from antique errors in the English and other languages that were never corrected, is to say that I weigh 100 kilograms, or that I weigh 220 pounds. It would be correct, according to the SI system of units, to say that I weigh 100 kilograms-force, or 220 pounds-force.

Remember, nobody cares about his weight to a precision better than 0.5%, because even if you pee you lose more than 0.1% of your weight, and if you have a good lunch you temporarily add about 0.5% to your weight. Therefore nobody cares that you are lighter in Mexico than in Helsinki.

But if you have even a wish to think as a scientist you have to correct your language and tell things as they are: if you show 100 kilograms on the scale, your mass is 100 kilograms, not your weight. Your weight is 981 Newtons or 100 kilograms-force in magnitude. You cannot do a very precise experiment without taking this into account.

And if you want to be a scientist, you will never mistake a unit of measure with a magnitude or a vector. You never mistake the measurement with the measuring equipment or scale.

Perhaps I don't understand how scales work. I assumed that in the factory a series of objects with known MASS were used to calibrate the scale on the display. Therefore although the scales measure force as long as the local g-value is more or less the same as the factory you will get the correct answer, as actually we incorrectly use weight. Maybe they do just measure force and incorrectly use kg for weight. Although I thought they typical weight of a human was about 700 N at sea level.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: instability
« Reply #134 on: January 23, 2013, 03:10:40 PM »

Perhaps I don't understand how scales work. I assumed that in the factory a series of objects with known MASS were used to calibrate the scale on the display. Therefore although the scales measure force as long as the local g-value is more or less the same as the factory you will get the correct answer, as actually we incorrectly use weight. Maybe they do just measure force and incorrectly use kg for weight. Although I thought they typical weight of a human was about 700 N at sea level.
I used the 100 kg or 981 Newton numbers just because they are easy for mental arithmetic. 700 Newtons is more likely the weight of a healthy man than 981, but that is mostly irrelevant.

The typical spring scale you find in a bathroom does measure weight, not mass. It would show about one sixth of the measurement if used on the Moon. The numbers are incorrectly marked as Kilograms, not Kilograms-force, but that scale is so imprecise that you would not see the difference between you in Mexico City and you in Helsinki.

The much better roman scale, and all the scales based on calibrated masses and a balance, really measure mass. You would get the same result on Earth and on the Moon. It would be correct to label the numbers as "kilograms".

Current electronic scales for the most part measure weight. Only the best laboratory equipment uses a different principle. They are recalibrated frequently with known masses, but you would be negligent if you moved them between distant places without recalibrating.

So, in the end, what people generally want to measure is mass, and if they properly calibrate their scales they will get correct mass readings.

Re: instability
« Reply #135 on: January 23, 2013, 04:02:06 PM »
Thork you are so thick you make me want to break my monitor. AN OUNCE IS A UNIT OF MASS. MASS IS SCALAR!!!
Im a tractor

?

Thork

Re: instability
« Reply #136 on: January 23, 2013, 05:17:42 PM »
Thork you are so thick you make me want to break my monitor. AN OUNCE IS A UNIT OF MASS. MASS IS SCALAR!!!
::)

Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/606907/troy-weight
troy weight, traditional system of weight in the British Isles based on the grain, pennyweight (24 grains), ounce (20 pennyweights), and pound (12 ounces). The troy grain, pennyweight, and ounce have been used since the Middle Ages to weigh gold, silver, and other precious metals and stones.

Quote from: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/troyounce.asp#axzz2I9kGpiNd
Definition of 'Troy Ounce'
A unit of measure for weight that dates back to the Middle Ages. Originally used in Troyes, France, the troy ounce was used when dealing with precious metals.

Re: instability
« Reply #137 on: January 23, 2013, 05:26:02 PM »
My god. Take a physics lesson. you make me sad.  :'(
Its a common miss conception but an ounce is a measure of mass we generally measure mass by weighing it. I think that is where your confusion is.
Im a tractor

?

Thork

Re: instability
« Reply #138 on: January 23, 2013, 05:28:02 PM »
You are right and the Encyclopaedia Britannica is wrong, I suppose?

I'm glad you know what is what and its the world's most famous Encyclopaedia that is full of misconceptions.  ::)

Maybe computer mathematic gurus Wolfram Alpha know less than you too?
http://reference.wolfram.com/legacy/v7/Units/ref/Ounce.html

And you are smarter than the guys that wrote and maintain the Collins dictionary?
Quote from: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ounce
noun
a unit of weight equal to one sixteenth of a pound (avoirdupois);
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 05:33:49 PM by Thork »

Re: instability
« Reply #139 on: January 23, 2013, 05:43:29 PM »
Either that or all the scientists an engineers in the world are wrong. :P
Look. IN laymans terms your quite correct to refer to an ounce as weight.
But If your talking science. your kg's ounces, and grams are called mass. Weight is simply the force of gravity acting downwards on an object. THese are very different things
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 05:55:46 PM by SuperHater7810 »
Im a tractor

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: instability
« Reply #140 on: January 23, 2013, 08:34:52 PM »
Either that or all the scientists an engineers in the world are wrong. :P
Look. IN laymans terms your quite correct to refer to an ounce as weight.
But If your talking science. your kg's ounces, and grams are called mass. Weight is simply the force of gravity acting downwards on an object. THese are very different things
You have to give half a point to Thork for finding an embarrassing error in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Well, more like a third of a point.

Instead of finding the many places where non-scientists mistakenly equated mass and weight, we have truly reputable sources for this information: from the NIST in the USA and from the BIPM, which is the international organization in charge of measures for the whole world.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/history.html

http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/3/2/

After all, since the Internet gave us such a variety of sources for everything, it is our responsibility to select the best sources, instead of relying on the archaic concept of a traditional Encyclopedia.

Re: instability
« Reply #141 on: January 24, 2013, 03:57:29 AM »
Yes. If a troy ounce is the same everywhere, it is a measurement of mass.
wat? That's some pretty fancy circular reasoning right there. It is a unit of weight. That is a fact. It is a troy weight. It is not a mass. Changing location does not change the units. Mass is a scalar, it has magnitude. Weight is a vector. It has both magnitude and direction. Moving it around the earth does not magically turn it into a scalar.

You stated it is not a measurement of mass. That's having it both ways.
Its not a measurement of mass. I just told you. Its a weight. An ounce is a vector. It has magnitude and direction.

W = m * g

Now, the fact that W remains constant all over earth (W is directly proportional to price of gold) and m stays the same because the number of atoms remains finite. So g isn't changing either or it messes up the equation.

I'm going to find it hard to dumb this down any more, so please read my post several times before asking any further questions.


Given that above you say that W = m * g let's pose a maths problem

You have 10 pennyweight of gold, how much gold do you have in terms of mass?
I'd like to agree with you but then we'd both be wrong!

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: instability
« Reply #142 on: February 09, 2013, 07:15:36 PM »
You are right and the Encyclopaedia Britannica is wrong, I suppose?

I'm glad you know what is what and its the world's most famous Encyclopaedia that is full of misconceptions.  ::)


Misconceptions like this?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Eruy˘z

  • 21
  • Astrophysicist
Re: instability
« Reply #143 on: February 10, 2013, 04:03:10 AM »
No - what I showed is much simpler than that. The acceleration due to gravity is slightly different around the Earth - this is a matter of fact.
Yeah, of course we all disagree with that so then using that to prove us wrong is a bit pointless. We have UNIVERSAL acceleration which is a constant.

Unlike the round earth constant 'gravity' that is apparently not constant at all. Instead you claim it to be a variable. So if your constants aren't constant, might we assume at least that your variables vary?

Yet its our theory with all the flaws. ::)
Ok. So this seems to be fairly close to the root of the problem. G is a constant with a value of 6.67384*10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 (same value in N m2 kg-2). g is a variable calculated by GM/r2. Now given that M, the mass of the Earth, is constant, the only variable is r, the distance from the center of the Earth. Given the size of the Earth, I'm sure we can agree that Δ(r-2) would be some small, giving only minute changes in g, as shown in the tables that have been posted.

G is the Gravitational Constant, g is the Gravitational Field Strenght (N m-1) or the Gravitaional Acceleration (m s-2) {both little g's will have the same value). That clear things up?
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: instability
« Reply #144 on: February 12, 2013, 04:45:00 AM »
No - what I showed is much simpler than that. The acceleration due to gravity is slightly different around the Earth - this is a matter of fact.
Yeah, of course we all disagree with that so then using that to prove us wrong is a bit pointless. We have UNIVERSAL acceleration which is a constant.

Unlike the round earth constant 'gravity' that is apparently not constant at all. Instead you claim it to be a variable. So if your constants aren't constant, might we assume at least that your variables vary?

Yet its our theory with all the flaws. ::)
Ok. So this seems to be fairly close to the root of the problem. G is a constant with a value of 6.67384*10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 (same value in N m2 kg-2). g is a variable calculated by GM/r2. Now given that M, the mass of the Earth, is constant, the only variable is r, the distance from the center of the Earth. Given the size of the Earth, I'm sure we can agree that Δ(r-2) would be some small, giving only minute changes in g, as shown in the tables that have been posted.

G is the Gravitational Constant, g is the Gravitational Field Strenght (N m-1) or the Gravitaional Acceleration (m s-2) {both little g's will have the same value). That clear things up?
Unfortunately the problem is quite a bit more complex. Earth is not perfectly spherical, so there is a significant difference between the poles and the Equator. Large and steep mountain ranges have more density than vast plain lands so they produce more local gravitation. Local gravitation even changes about twice per day due to the passing of the Sun and Moon.

All of this means that you will have to measure your local gravitation directly if you want to know it with the nine digits or so that we can currently measure. And the "residual gravitational pull from the stars" that Tom Bishop invented is only good to have something to laugh at.

Re: instability
« Reply #145 on: February 14, 2013, 06:46:21 AM »
When I jump I don't stay in the air...therefor (Since I would be traveling up at the same speed as the earth before I jumped) It must be constantly accelerating to "catch up with me" ... 2 problems with that...:

-Why doesn't it catch up with things like planes?
-What happens when it get's to the speed of light?

Re: instability
« Reply #146 on: February 14, 2013, 08:18:25 AM »
-Why doesn't it catch up with things like planes?
-What happens when it get's to the speed of light?

  • The Bernoulli Effect
  • It won't