Gene, I'm amazed! I had absolutely no problem understanding what
Carleton meant by this casual statement. As I often tell my physics
students, we must not lose grasp of our common sense in some mindless,
headlong rush to meticulously apply equations to a situation. Obvously
Carleton used "weight" informally to mean mass, as many people do.
I know you have made it clear on this forum that you don't like the use
of "weight" to mean "mass", but obviously some people here feel that's
OK in casual conversation. I'm one of them. Carleton's point had nothing
to do with the physics of mass and force, but about the readout on a
treadmill.
Jim
Gene Mechtly wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > ... My doctor says I need to lose weight (from 106 down to 75)...
> As advocates of SI, we all know that weight is a force, and the
> unit of force is the newton.
> Are you really telling us that you mass is only about 11 kg
> (106 N/9.81 (m/s^2) rounded to 11 kg), and that your doctor advises
> reducing it to only about 8 kg?
> That is the accurate SI implication of your unitless statement!
> Gene.
--
Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!"
James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/
10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789
