On 14/02/2008, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:13:51 +, I V wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:07:49 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
experience. The notion of impetus -- where an object throw moves in a
straight line until it runs out of impetus, then
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:35:09 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
If they asked an archer to fire an arrow through a distant window, he'd
aim slightly above it. You can't spend dozens of hours every week
shooting arrows at targets without learning to compensate for gravity.
You are forgetting two
On 14/02/2008, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:35:09 +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote:
If they asked an archer to fire an arrow through a distant window, he'd
aim slightly above it. You can't spend dozens of hours every week
shooting arrows at targets without
On 13/02/2008, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the rest of us just use SI. (And if you bring up the
_kilogram-force_, I'll just cry.)
Don't cry, I just want to say that I've hated the kilogram-force
almost as much as I've hated the electron-volt. Who is the lazy who
comes up
And the rest of us just use SI. (And if you bring up the
_kilogram-force_, I'll just cry.)
SI = Super Incredible?
Awesome name for Force/Mass / NewItemOfClothing2050!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On 13/02/2008, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the rest of us just use SI. (And if you bring up the
_kilogram-force_, I'll just cry.)
Don't cry, I just want to say that I've hated the kilogram-force
almost as much as I've hated the electron-volt. Who is
On 13/02/2008, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-On [20080212 22:15], Dotan Cohen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Note that Google will give a calculator result for 1 kilogram in
pounds, but not for 1 kilogram in inches. I wonder why not? After
all, both are conversions of
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
-On [20080212 22:15], Dotan Cohen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Note that Google will give a calculator result for 1 kilogram in
pounds, but not for 1 kilogram in inches. I wonder why not? After
all, both are conversions of incompatible measurements, ie, they
On 2008-02-13, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eh? Last I checked both pound and kilogram are units of mass, so where is
the incompatibility?
I've never heard of pound as a unit of mass. At least where I went to
school (Boston, MA), pound is the English unit of force, slug is the
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2008-02-13, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eh? Last I checked both pound and kilogram are units of mass, so where is
the incompatibility?
I've never heard of pound as a unit of mass. At least where I went to
school (Boston, MA), pound is the English unit of
On 2008-02-13, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2008-02-13, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eh? Last I checked both pound and kilogram are units of mass, so where is
the incompatibility?
I've never heard of pound as a unit of mass. At least where I went to
-On [20080213 20:16], Jeff Schwab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
So what is the mass of a slug, anyway? (I assume this is slug as in
bullet, not slimy, creeping thing.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass) would be my guess.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org /
-On [20080213 18:46], Jeff Schwab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've never heard of pound as a unit of mass.
Then please correct/fix:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)
Me being mainland European I know not this silly system called imperial.
[Yes, partially in good jest...]
--
Jeroen
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:07:49 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
experience. The notion of impetus -- where an object throw moves in a
straight line until it runs out of impetus, then falls straight down --
is clearly contrary to everyday experience of watching two people throw
a ball back and
I V wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:07:49 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
experience. The notion of impetus -- where an object throw moves in a
straight line until it runs out of impetus, then falls straight down --
is clearly contrary to everyday experience of watching two people throw
a ball
Grant Edwards wrote:
A slug is 14.593903 kg according to the trysty old Unix units
program. Hmm, I always thought a slug weighed exactly 32 lbs,
but I see it's 32.174049. Learn something new every day...
It's defined so that 1 slug times the acceleration due to gravity is a
pound. The
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:13:51 +, I V wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:07:49 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
experience. The notion of impetus -- where an object throw moves in a
straight line until it runs out of impetus, then falls straight down --
is clearly contrary to everyday experience
Jeff Schwab wrote:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Jeff Schwab wrote:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Robert Bossy wrote:
I'm pretty sure we can still hear educated people say that free fall
speed depends on the weight of the object without realizing it's a
double mistake.
Robert Bossy wrote:
In my mind, the second mistake was the confusion between weight and mass.
I see. If so, then that sounds like another terminology gotcha. The
distinction between weight and mass is all but irrelevant for everyday
activities, since the acceleration due to gravity is so
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:18:38 -0800, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
equivalence for everyday usage and make no requirement of using the
proper units for mass (kg) vs. weight (N) for, say, buying things at
Erik Max Francis wrote:
My point was, and still is, that if this question without further
context is posed to a generally educated laymen, the supposedly wrong
answer that was given is actually _correct_.
Except that they probably don't understand exactly how and
why it's correct. E.g. they
On 12/02/2008, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:18:38 -0800, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
equivalence for everyday usage and make no requirement of using the
proper units
On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forgive the cliché, but there's already too much road rage on the
information superhighway. I've had limited access to Usenet for the
last couple of years, and coming back, I find myself shocked at how many
people seem to be mean and
-On [20080212 22:15], Dotan Cohen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Note that Google will give a calculator result for 1 kilogram in
pounds, but not for 1 kilogram in inches. I wonder why not? After
all, both are conversions of incompatible measurements, ie, they
measure different things.
Eh? Last I
greg wrote:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
My point was, and still is, that if this question without further
context is posed to a generally educated laymen, the supposedly wrong
answer that was given is actually _correct_.
Except that they probably don't understand exactly how and
why it's
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:18:38 -0800, Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
equivalence for everyday usage and make no requirement of using the
proper units for mass (kg) vs. weight (N) for, say, buying things at
Ah,
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
-On [20080212 22:15], Dotan Cohen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Note that Google will give a calculator result for 1 kilogram in
pounds, but not for 1 kilogram in inches. I wonder why not? After
all, both are conversions of incompatible measurements, ie, they
On 11/02/2008, Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-02-11, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well the history of physics for at least two hundred years has
been a migration away from the intuitive.
Starting at least as far back as Newtonian mechanics. I once
read a very
Jeff Schwab wrote:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Robert Bossy wrote:
I'm pretty sure we can still hear educated people say that free fall
speed depends on the weight of the object without realizing it's a
double mistake.
Well, you have to qualify it better than this, because what you've
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2008-02-09, Thomas Dybdahl Ahle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quantum mechanics are closely related to philosophy.
I've never understood that claim. You can philosophize about
anything: biology, math, weather, the stars, the moon, and so
on. I don't see how QM is any
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:54:30 +1300, greg wrote:
Until DeBroglie formulated
its hypothesis of dual nature of matter (and light): wave and particle
at the same time.
Really it's neither waves nor particles, but something else for which
there isn't a good word in
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Robert Bossy wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
After repeated attempts at the tasks set for them in the
experiments, the subjects would learn strategies that would
work in a Newtonian world, but the initial intuitive reactions
were very non-Newtonian (regardless of how
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Jeff Schwab wrote:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Robert Bossy wrote:
I'm pretty sure we can still hear educated people say that free fall
speed depends on the weight of the object without realizing it's a
double mistake.
Well, you have to qualify it better than this,
On 09/02/2008, Ron Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The division between philosophy and science can be fine indeed. Philosophy
and science are the two rigorous methods of inquiry into the fundamental
nature of things (other methods include religion and superstition). Because
of it's
On 09/02/2008, Ron Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The division between philosophy and science can be fine indeed. Philosophy
and science are the two rigorous methods of inquiry into the fundamental
nature of things (other methods include religion and superstition). Because
of it's
greg wrote:
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
Before the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (end of s. XIX), some
physicists would have said light propagates over ether, some kind of
matter that fills the whole space but has no measurable mass, but the
experiment failed to show any evidence of
Steve Holden wrote:
Well the history of physics for at least two hundred years has been a
migration away from the intuitive. In strict linguistic terms the word
subatomic is a fine oxymoron. I suspect it's really turtles all the
way down.
Well, hard to say that's been a monotonic pattern.
Robert Bossy wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
After repeated attempts at the tasks set for them in the
experiments, the subjects would learn strategies that would
work in a Newtonian world, but the initial intuitive reactions
were very non-Newtonian (regardless of how educated they were
in
Jeff Schwab wrote:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fair enough!
Dear me, what's Usenet coming to these days...
I know, really. Sheesh! Jeff, I won't stand for that! Argue with
me! :-)
OK, uh... You're a
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fair enough!
Dear me, what's Usenet coming to these days...
I know, really. Sheesh! Jeff, I won't stand for that! Argue with me!
:-)
OK, uh... You're a poopy-head.
Forgive the
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fair enough!
Dear me, what's Usenet coming to these days...
I know, really. Sheesh! Jeff, I won't stand for that! Argue with me! :-)
--
Erik Max Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose,
On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Jeff Schwab wrote:
So what's the double mistake? My understanding was (1) the misuse
(ok, vernacular use) of the term free fall, and (2) the association
of weight with free-fall velocity (If I tie an elephant's
Jeff Schwab wrote:
So what's the double mistake? My understanding was (1) the misuse
(ok, vernacular use) of the term free fall, and (2) the association of
weight with free-fall velocity (If I tie an elephant's tail to a
mouse's, and drop them both into free fall, will the mouse slow the
On Feb 12, 7:16 am, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Jeff Schwab wrote:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fair enough!
Dear me, what's Usenet coming to these days...
I know, really.
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:54:30 +1300, greg wrote:
Until DeBroglie formulated
its hypothesis of dual nature of matter (and light): wave and particle
at the same time.
Really it's neither waves nor particles, but something else for which
there isn't a good word in everyday English.
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Jeff Schwab wrote:
So what's the double mistake? My understanding was (1) the misuse
(ok, vernacular use) of the term free fall, and (2) the association
of weight with free-fall velocity (If I tie an elephant's tail to a
mouse's, and drop them both into free
The division between philosophy and science can be fine indeed. Philosophy and
science are the two rigorous methods of inquiry into the fundamental nature of
things (other methods include religion and superstition). Because of it's
process, science limits itself to those questions which can
On 2008-02-11, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well the history of physics for at least two hundred years has
been a migration away from the intuitive.
Starting at least as far back as Newtonian mechanics. I once
read a very interesting article about some experiments that
showed that
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2008-02-11, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well the history of physics for at least two hundred years has
been a migration away from the intuitive.
Starting at least as far back as Newtonian mechanics. I once
read a very interesting article about
En Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:05:27 -0200, Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribi�:
On 2008-02-11, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well the history of physics for at least two hundred years has
been a migration away from the intuitive.
Starting at least as far back as Newtonian mechanics.
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Jeff Schwab wrote:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2008-02-12, Jeff Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fair enough!
Dear me, what's Usenet coming to these days...
I know, really. Sheesh! Jeff, I won't stand for that! Argue with
me! :-)
OK,
On 2008-02-09, Doug Morse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or just the old particle/wave dichotomy... particles
travel, waves propagate (that is, the wave form -- crest/dip
-- changes position, but the material of the medium it is in
just jiggles in place).
So, showing of my physics
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
Before the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (end of s. XIX), some
physicists would have said light propagates over ether, some kind of
matter that fills the whole space but has no measurable mass, but the
experiment failed to show any evidence of it existence.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:14:10 -0600, Reedick, Andrew wrote:
'c' is also the speed of light.
'c' is the speed of light _in_a_vacuum_.
True.
And since nothing can travel faster than light...
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light _in_a_vacuum_. There
are
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 14:56 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Propagate, travel, what's the difference?
Unfortunately, I didn't study any of this but I sure do remember the
answer one drunk physic said to me in a bar when I ask him the question:
Does light travel or propagate?
He
On 2008-02-09, Thomas Dybdahl Ahle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 14:56 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Propagate, travel, what's the difference?
Unfortunately, I didn't study any of this but I sure do remember the
answer one drunk physic said to me in a bar when I ask
So, showing of my physics ignorance: I presume then that this means that
light, say from the sun, is actually sending particles to the earth, since the
space between is mostly vacuum? Or is there enough material in the
near-vacuum of space for propogation to occur?
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 12:25:51
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2008-02-09, Thomas Dybdahl Ahle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 14:56 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Propagate, travel, what's the difference?
Unfortunately, I didn't study any of this but I sure do remember the
answer one drunk physic said to me in a
En Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:01:31 -0200, Doug Morse [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
So, showing of my physics ignorance: I presume then that this means that
light, say from the sun, is actually sending particles to the earth,
since the
space between is mostly vacuum? Or is there enough material in
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:14:10 -0600, Reedick, Andrew wrote:
'c' is also the speed of light.
'c' is the speed of light _in_a_vacuum_.
True.
And since nothing can travel faster than light...
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light _in_a_vacuum_. There
are situtaitons
60 matches
Mail list logo
