[Info-vax] OT: Force vs. weight (was: Where is EISNER:: and who funds it?)

[alanfe...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 10:20:20 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2021-12-27 14:47, alanfe... at gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 5:49:19 AM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote: 
> >> On 2021-12-26 19:25, alanfe... at gmail.com wrote: 
> >>> On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 6:35:26 PM UTC-5, Johnny Billquist wrote: 
> >>>> On 2021-12-24 04:40, alanfe... at gmail.com wrote: 
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 7:55:40 AM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote: 
> >>>>>> In article <00B6DA8D... at SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- 
> >>>>>> @SendSpamHere.ORG writes: 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> Depends on the purpose. Use the right too for the job. And to my European freinds: How many Newtons do you weigh? 
> >>>> I think I might have hit reply instead of follow up. But instead of a 
> >>>> long rant, I'll just observe that newtons is force. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> And newtons are defined as kg * m/2^s. Anyone using SI units thus have a 
> >>>> pretty easy time to figure out how many newtons of force he asserts, 
> >>>> based on his mass. If you are lazy, you just add a "0" after your 
> >>>> weight, and you have approximately how many newtons you are asserting at 
> >>>> the surface of the earth. If you want to be a bit more precise you 
> >>>> multiply your weight by 9.81, and if you want to be very precise, you 
> >>>> need to know the actual gravity at the point where you are, and you 
> >>>> multiply your mass by that to find the force. (But then you need to also 
> >>>> really figure out what your mass is, which isn't that easy to figure out.) 
> >>>> 
> >>>> And of course, if we move to the moon, our weight, and the force we 
> >>>> assert will be all different. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> But in the most simplistic terms, since if you step on a scale, you get 
> >>>> a number for your weight, in kg, just multiplying it by 10 is usually 
> >>>> good enough for newtons. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Do you have any other "difficult" questions for your European friends? 
> >>>> 
> >>>> And while we're at it, how many lbf do you weight? And what is lbf? 
> >>> 
> >>> You bet! I weigh myself every morning and can tell you in an instant. I'd rather not on a public forum though! And I don't even have to add a 0, which is not quite accurate enough in my book. If memorizing 32 and 212 is too much effort (which you don't even need to know the majority of the time you use temperature), then multiplying by 9.8 certainly is! Yes, you can figure it out, but if you go by that standard, neither system is superior. 
> > 
> >>> And it's lbs., not lbf. Well, I suppose you could use lbf. I'd have to look it up. Not really relevant here. 
> >> No. I was talking about lbf, *not* lbs. 
> >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)) 
> >> 
> >> The parallel of N vs. kg. 
> > 
> > Picky, pikcy, picky. No one in America calls it lbf. We call it lbs. You get on the scale, write down the number, and you put lbs. to the right of it. This lbs. vs. lbf. for the purpose of this discussion is a difference without a distinction. WGAF? And no conversions. We get the right number from the start. Maybe lbs. vs. lbf. is good for engineers. IDK. I'm not an engineer and am not sufficiently up on the subject to say. Just a guess. Regardless, when Americans weigh themselves they use lbs. When you look at products in a store sold be weight, it's lbs. No one in America uses lbf. in ordinary day-to-day living.
> Now, wait a minute. Why did you ask for Europeans wight in newton if you 
> then call me picky when I ask for your weight in lbf. It is *not* the 
> same as lbs. 

Because Philip Helbig brought it up. He said newtons are the preferred unit of weight.

And asking for lbf instead of lbs IS picky. Thank you for making my point for me.

Alright, I was responding to Helbig re newtons. I bet most Europeans don't even know what newtons are. Maybe they do. I don't really know. But forced to guess, I'd say not. You tell me!

I should not have brought it up because it wasn't you who brought up newtons. Helbig did. I should have stayed quiet or responded to Helbig. But in the context of his answer I saw no reason to. Still, no one in the U.S. cares about lbf., and few even know about it. It's irrelevant to the discussion.

OK, maybe no one in Europe cares or knows about newtons. Fine. We're even. End of discussion about newtons and lbs. and lbf. and all that.

> 
> You really need to understand what you ask for, and don't get into 
> something and then call others picky when they just talk about the exact 
> thing *you* asked about. 
> 
> When people talk about weight in Europe, they normally use kilogram, and 
> not newton, because newton is *force*. And yes, you can argue that 
> weight and force as equivalent. Because weight is usually meant as mass 
> at earth gravity. I weight much less at the moon... But I have the same 
> mass. 

We all know this stuff about mass vs weight vs force vs all the relevant stuff. We don't need to explain it to each other. There is some ambiguity about weight though. You can go to the moon and weigh less, but you haven't lost weight! _Context matters_. Sometimes you have to not take words too literally. And then there's the nonsense about lbs vs lbf. Nobody GAF in the U.S. Nobody cares. It's irrelevant to the discussion. 

So Europeans think that a kg is a measure of weight? OK. Whatever.

> 
> You seem to not understand what lbf is at all. Read the link I gave to 
> Wikipedia. If you use SI units for gravity, then lbf is roughly lbs*10 
> (more exactly 9.81, and yet more exact if you figure out exactly what 
> the gravity is where you are). 
> The number on your scale gives you lbs, yes. Just as my scale gives me 
> kilogrammes. 

NOBODY IN THE U.S. CARES ABOUT lbf. FEW EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT. IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. NOBODY IN THE U.S. GAF. I'M TALKING ABOUT NORMAL EVERYDAY USE, NOT NITPICKING LBS VS LBF. How often do I have to repeat this?

> I could ask the obvious question why you even asked about my weight in 
> newton in the first place. Did you think it would be some magic, 
> complicated number that I wouldn't know? I suspect most europeans know 
> their weight in newton, since it's pretty much their weight in kilos, 
> with an added 0. And pretty much everyone knows their weight in kilos.

As you yourself said, a kg is not a unit of weight. Now you say it is. Sure. Also, adding a zero doesn't give accuracy to comparable to lbs.

> > And you said "vs." Didn't you mean "is"? That's how I read. A conversion! But I can handle it without bitching about it. In fact, I don't think I even noticed it until writing this post.
> You asked about Europeans weight in newtons. No one measure their weight 
> in newtons. Newtons is force. But obviously there is a clear correlation 
> between what you consider your weight, and the force you exercise. 
> 
> So it really is "vs". You asked for weight in N, while we normally 
> measure weight in kg. So I tossed the question back to you about lbf, 
> and you don't even understand the difference between lbs and lbf. 

NOBODY CARES ABOUT LBS. vs. LBF. IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. NOBODY IN THE U.S. USES IT SAVE PERHAPS FOR ENGINEERS. STOP BRINGING IT UP.

I'll make you a deal. Stop bringing up lbf, and I'll stop bringing up newtons. It was Helbig who brought up newtons, so I shouldn't have replied to you about it. I apologize for that. I still stand by my words though.

> 
> But the relationsship between kg and N is exactly corresponding to the 
> difference between lbs and lbf. Hence the "vs".
> >> The question seemed very relevant, as you asked if Europeans could tell 
> >> how much they weighted in N. 
> > 
> > You want to be picky? It's weigh, not weighted.
> I'm not a native English speaker. If you really want to get out of this 
> discussion by trying to find spelling errors, or incorrect application 
> of temporal forms then it would seem you really don't have much more to 
> say on the topic.

I was making a point, not criticizing your English. You're being picky about lbs. vs. lbf. Again, no one in the U.S. uses lbf. Few even know about it. And the ones who do probably don't care about the difference when it comes to weighing humans and food. It doesn't matter. 

Nobody goes to the store, sees a label saying there's 2 lbs. worth of product in the package, and complains that it should be lbf. NO ONE CARES. IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION.

> >>>> Force in pounds for acceleration expressed in m/s^2 ? So if you want it 
> >>>> in lb * foot/s^2, there isn't even a unit? How messed up is this thing? 
> > 
> > I was talking about weighing yourself. Some claimed that the proper unit is N, as that is the SI base unit. Dynes, somehow, despite being a totally legitamite metric unit is somehow deprecated. In fact, it was Helbig:
> N is the SI unit for force. This shouldn't be that hard... 
> When you start tossing weight around, it's a different thing.
> > And the acceleration bit. Who's actually doing this? Why are you multiplying a force by an acceleration anyway? That makes no sense!
> 1 Newton is defined as the force required to accelerate a mass of 1 kg 
> by 1 m/s/s. 
> 
> It has everything to do with acceleration. 

Why are you multiplying a force by acceleration?

> 
> How would you define a unit for force?

Mass times acceleration. So what? What's more important is why Europeans think a kilogram is a unit of weight. I still prefer F FOR NORMAL EVERYDAY USE. In the science lab it's different. I made no claims about F in the science lab. I said for NOMRAL EVERYDAY USE. I never said F is good in the lab. In fact, I said that in physics we use kelvins. OK? Do I need to repeat that still further even also yet again?

> >> And the conversion between kg and N is rather simple on the surface of 
> >> the earth, as I observed. 
> > 
> > So when a European has to do a conversion to Fahrenheit, it's a nearly insurmountable task. What a PITA! Oh, but if you have to do a "simple conversion" in your own system, suddenly it's okay. I get on the scale and I immediately get a number in lbs. and that's it. I could flip the bars and get kg, but I grew up in a country that uses lbs., so I use pounds. Everything I read or see in video says lbs., so I go with lbs. So what? No conversion is involved! And kg is a unit of mass. Weight is a force. Again, this is picky, picky, picky. Well, I find it slightly annoying, but I get by.
> I see that you don't get it. What I don't get is why you then try to 
> pick a fight about it.
> >> The conversation between lbs and lbf is easy if you use SI units for 
> >> gravity, but becomes more convoluted if you use ft/s^2. 

NOBODY IN THE US CARES ABUT LBF. ETC.

> >>>>> Back to Fahrenheit: It has its advantages. When the temperature is in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s -- each range conjures up a different feeling. The Celsius degree is too big for that. "But is based on 0 and 100 for water!" So F what [pun not intended!]. How often do you even think of those when you are involved with the temperature. You've got two numbers: 32 and 212. Is this too hard to memorize? And when you hear those numbers you know it's temperature-related. 0 and 100 could be 'most anything. 
> >>>> There is absolutely no problems looking at celcius in ranges and figure 
> >>>> out a feeling based on that. Most people do. Nonsense to think you can't. 
> >>> 
> >>> Really? I'm talking ranges of 10. In Celsius if you say it's in the 20s, what does that really mean? Anywhere from 68 F to 86 Fahranheit. Is it hot out or comfortable? If I say 70s F, it's comfortable or slightly warm. Sure, if you give a particular number, like 23 deg C., you can have a feel for it. But in ranges of tens, F is clearly better. 
> >> Of course I have a feeling about when it's in the 20s. I'm actually 
> >> amazed that you think that I would not. 
> >> 20s is acceptable summer temperature. I don't have to wear that much 
> >> clothes. High 20s and I might start thinking it's getting warm. But 
> > 
> > C'mon. 20 C is 68 F, just a tad cool. 29 C is 84 F. Definitely warm. Too warm. 
> > 
> > Ah! High 20s! You have to add the "high". In F., OTOH, you can just say 80s. Now tell me of the two which is simpler?
> Yeah. And I've been enough in the US to have seen "in the high 80s" 
> plenty of times as well. 
> 
> Really, from that point of view there is none that is simpler. It's 
> amazingly ignorant to think that I wouldn't bracket temperatures to make 
> for easier classifications. And I do that in 10s. -10 to 0, 0 to 10, 10 
> to 20, 20 to 30, 30 to 40. I really do that. 

Bracketing by 10 in F is more accurate. More precise. Obviously you don't get that, since I've had to explain it at least twice. I never said you wouldn't bracket temperatures by 10s. I said it was less useful, less precise. I never said no one does it.

> And I suspect pretty much any person does outside of the US. I know that 
> all the people I've met do it.
> > I think the Celsius degree is too large for everyday use. When I nudge the thermostat in my home, I do it by a single degree at a time. In C I'd have to use 1/2. Oh, but multiplying by 2 is too much of a pain for you.
> I nudge by a single degree. Definitely fine grained enough. Actually, I 
> could just as well do it 2 at a time as well, and would still be 
> perfectly happy. 
> 
> If you want to do things at such small intervals, I will not stop you. 
> The temperature scales do have fractions, so there is nothing preventing 
> you from doing it as fine grained as you wish. Why are you not doing it 
> by half F degrees then? After all, that is even finer control.

Because my thermostat doesn't have 1/2 degree increments. You didn't know that? You do now. And I don't need 1/2 degree increments. But for me to do the same in C I would. Maybe your thermostats increment in 1/2 degrees. IDK. Regardless, it's not a point in favor of C.

> >> Humans are rather flexible, and deal with systems pretty well. It's just 
> >> that it's nicer to have systems that are easy to do conversions on 
> >> without having to do an excessive amount of math, which is why the rest 
> >> of the world stopped using imperial units. Believe it or not, but until 
> >> 200 years ago, we all did it the same way the US still does. But the 
> >> rest of the world moved on. 
> > 
> > What conversions? Who's doing conversions? YOU GUYS are. I'm not doing any -- unless I'm cooking!
> Or doing scientific work... Or talking to anyone outside the US. Or 
> whatever...

We're not doing scientific work here. We're not doing scientific work here. We're not doing scientific work here. We're not doing scientific work here. We're not doing scientific work here. We're not doing scientific work here. We're not doing scientific work here. We're not doing scientific work here. We're not doing scientific work here. We're not doing scientific work here. We're not doing scientific work here. We're not doing scientific work here. 

My god, how many times to I have to say this?

I already explained that scientists use lots of non-SI non-metric units. So what? I never brought up scientific work except to explain that scientists use lots of non-metric units when SOMEONE ELSE brought it up. Like you are now. It's not relevant to the discussion. My main point for the nth time is that there is no advantage or reason for Americans to switch to Celsius. F has its advantages, and C has its own. So what?

> > Also, the rest of the world didn't put men on the moon. The rest of the world doesn't have the primary currency of the world. The rest of the world doesn't define and set the base units of the metric or SI system, AFAIK. Yes, there's that kg mass in Paris, but that's finally been replaced with a better standard. Maybe other countries are involved. I don't know for sure. The rest of the world doesn't have several elements named after American entities: Americium, Berkelium, Californium, Tennessine, Lawrencium (a lab in California). Can any other country beat that? The U.S. used to be the leader in particle physics. Well, not so much anymore. Bummer. 
> > 
> > So "the rest of the world" means nothing. Hey, use your system. I don't really care. I'm not telling you to switch. But YOU are telling ME to switch, to which I say, NO! Besides, there's plenty of metric use in the U.S.: beverages, tools, caliber, liquor, engine displacement, focal length, lens diameters, film widths, Apple brags that their new iMacs are 11.5 mm thick. Oh, sorry, the meter is preferred. mm is fine and in this case greatly preferred by me. (Sorry, Philip!) Drugs, both legal and illegal. All metric or a mix. And IMO there's no reason for Americans to switch to C for non-lab stuff.

> The world still also use the x86 and Windows. Which most people would 
> agree are not exactly the best systems around. Does that prove anything 
> more than crappy stuff can still rule the world. Nothing have to be 
> good. But is that enough of an excuse to not do things better? 

Wasn't it you who said the rest of the world has moved on? Now you say such a thing doesn't matter. Please make up your mind. 

> 
> You tell me. 
> 
> And no. I'm not telling you to switch. I'm merely observing that in the 
> long run, it would help you (or rather your kids). 

Sounds like you want me to switch, or at least it would be beneficial for me to do so. I explained how that would be a bad thing. Now you tell me you not telling me to switch. Normally when you tell someone something would be good for them, they think you are suggesting they switch. My best friend is always telling me that about various unappealing foods: "It's good for you." The implication is clear. He wants me to eat or at least try those foods. OK, you don't want me to switch to C. You just want to me to acknowledge that I or children or whoever would benefit from it, but with no implication I should embrace it. OK. Sure.

> response was because you questioned if Europeans would know their weight 
> in newtons, which they do, and during this it became apparent that you 
> don't even know what a newton is. Oh well. 

No they don't. You have to multiply by 9.81 to get comparable accuracy. 

Anyway, my main point was about Fahrenheit. It has its advantages and I see nothing advantageous with Celsius for normal everyday life. Yes, in science it has its uses. Perhaps mostly with chemists. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SCIENTIFIC USE. How many times do I have to say that?

I'll be explicit here: In scientific work, yes, it is best to use Celsius and kelvins. I never said otherwise. I did, however, say that scientists use many non-metric units. For normal everyday use outside of science, F is already well-established in the US, and switching to Celsius would be counterproductive, if not a disaster.

> 
> Johnny

Alan  (^_^(