Rant against unit of measure nazis, check your ignorance

[BrainGlutton]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

… barley corn is a thing?

Three barleycorns make an inch.

One makes a song.

[watchwolf49]

A third is 1/60th of a second, or 1/3,600th of a minute

[BrainGlutton]

“1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight – it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law!”

[BrainGlutton]

From George Orwell’s “As I Please” column, published in the Tribune, March 14, 1947:

Another thing I am against in advance [in addition to simplified spelling] – for it is bound to be suggested sooner or later – is the complete scrapping of our present system of weights and measures.

Obviously you have got to use the metric system of certain purposes. For scientific work it has long been in use, and it is also needed for tools and machinery, especially if you want to export them. But there is a strong case for keeping on the old measurements for use in everyday life. One reason is that the metric system does not possess, or has not succeeded in establishing, a large number of units that can be visualized. There is, for instance, effectively no unit between the metre, which is more than a yard, and the centimetre, which is less than half an inch. In English you can describe someone as being five feet three inches high, or five feet nine inches, or six feet one inch, and your hearer will know fairly accurately what you mean. But I have never heard a Frenchman say, “He is a hundred and forty-two centimetres high”; it would not convey any visual image. So also with various other measurements. Rods and acres, pints, quarts and gallons, pounds, stones and hundredweights, are all of them units with which we are intimately familiar, and we should be slightly poorer without them. Actually, in countries where the metric system is in force a few of the old measurements tend to linger on for everyday purposes, although officially discouraged.

There is also the literary consideration, which cannot be left quite out of account. The names of the units in the old system are short homely words which lend themselves to vigorous speech. Putting a quart into a pint pot is a good image, which could hardly be expressed in the metric system. Also, the literature of the past deals only in the old measurements, and many passages would become an irritation if one had to do a sum in arithmetic when one read them, as one does with those tiresome versts in a Russian novel.

The emmet’s inch and eagle’s mile
Make lame philosophy to smile:

fancy having to turn that into millimetres!

[rat_avatar]

@Do_Not_Taunt

Can I still get grumpy when people (try to) measure energy with watts?

You do know that they are trying to define the kilogram based on watts

Be ready to pit the coming “electronic kilogram”

(It will be a while, they kind of ran into problems with measuring gravity or moving them down the hall)

[The_Niply_Elder]

@rat_avatar

Nitpick, weight and mass are fundamentally the same thing due to the Einstein equivalence principle. The defined way of measuring them may be slightly different but they measure the same fundamental property. As they are defined mass is a measure of the energy required to move an object and weight is the observed force of an object being accelerated due to gravity which is the same fundamental force in this universe.

Honestly I think you should pit yourself for stating in GQ that weight and mass are the same thing. And your lame-brained attempt at explaining general relativity just takes the cake. :rolleyes: you know the cake from johneegee’s cookbook spreadsheet.

[rat_avatar]

@The_Niply_Elder

Honestly I think you should pit yourself for stating in GQ that weight and mass are the same thing. And your lame-brained attempt at explaining general relativity just takes the cake. :rolleyes: you know the cake from johneegee’s cookbook spreadsheet.

According to GR space-time is a four dimensional Hausdorff differential manifold on which a metric tensor is imposed that solves the Einstein field equations, and that metric tensor gives rise to geodesics, and objects that are not experiencing any other force will move along the geodesics described by that metric.

What we call “weight” is a force that is preventing an object from following that geodesic and by definition any measure of a force which is exerted to it is measuring the inertial mass of that object.

If you are so smart that you know how to disprove the equivalence principle do so, but I am guessing that because your post is devoid of any content out of insults you are the clueless one.

I bet you didn’t even realize that the pound has always been technically measured the same way as the kilogram for way longer than the kilogram even existed. The confusion is only based in the fact that Kg and Kp were never used in the same fashion.

Can you come back with anything that is a real challenge, or are you just venting because you are butt hurt about losing some trite little fact to feel better about yourself by correcting others with your 16th century understanding of how the universe works?

[wolfpup]

@rat_avatar

… This means that the total energy state will change when an object is subject to a change in gravitational force which will change it’s mass …

“change it’s mass”? You use a contraction for “it is” in place of the possessive pronoun? Seriously? You will have more than unit of measure Nazis to worry about if you keep this up, ungrammatical young Schweinehund.

Sorry, is this a bad time?

[naita]

The difference of interest is between weight and mass as measured in newtons and kilograms, and the fact that our instruments will generally measure the first and use a conversion to the second that is only valid locally.

The mess that exists in the world of those not sticking with SI is of no interest to me.

[Ludovic]

@wolfpup

“change it’s mass”? You use a contraction for “it is” in place of the possessive pronoun? Seriously? You will have more than unit of measure Nazis to worry about if you keep this up, ungrammatical young Schweinehund.

Sorry, is this a bad time?

I think it means that the particle will no longer be a Catholic service. First the unit of measure Nazis came for the fermions, but I said nothing because I wasn’t ferm.

[dasmoocher]

Slight hijack, but I thought this footnote from Gaiman and Pratchett’s Good Omens was funny:

Newt’s pay was one old shilling per year.

[NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One shilling = Five Pee. It helps to
understand the antique finances of the Witchfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system:

Two farthings = One Ha’penny. Two ha’pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and One Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.

The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated.]

[The_Niply_Elder]

@rat_avatar

According to GR space-time is a four dimensional Hausdorff differential manifold on which a metric tensor is imposed that solves the Einstein field equations, and that metric tensor gives rise to geodesics, and objects that are not experiencing any other force will move along the geodesics described by that metric.

What we call “weight” is a force that is preventing an object from following that geodesic and by definition any measure of a force which is exerted to it is measuring the inertial mass of that object.

If you are so smart that you know how to disprove the equivalence principle do so, but I am guessing that because your post is devoid of any content out of insults you are the clueless one.

I bet you didn’t even realize that the pound has always been technically measured the same way as the kilogram for way longer than the kilogram even existed. The confusion is only based in the fact that Kg and Kp were never used in the same fashion.

Can you come back with anything that is a real challenge, or are you just venting because you are butt hurt about losing some trite little fact to feel better about yourself by correcting others with your 16th century understanding of how the universe works?

Bro, what a dumbass thing to bring up. Alright get ready because I’m going to drop some knowledge on your noggin right now bruh:

w = m * g

weight equals mass times gravity broster.

See? Different things on different sides of the equation bromigo.

Brostronauts up on the ISS experience weightlessness, not masslessness. Not the same thing, in fact you couldn’t make the mass needle shift appreciably in any direction short of starting some broticle-antibroticle reaction going, but that has nothing to do with it. Also in all your pseudointellectualism quoting things from Einstein, Hawking, Penrose whose writing you don’t understand, you are making the clear mistake of confusing “g” (little gee, earth’s gravitational acceleration at sea level) with “G” (big Gee, the gravitational constant). Totally different things brotato chip.

[Saint_Cad]

@billfish678

Shove a cactus up your ass.

A cactus with AIDS.

And for Blaster Master. US shoe sizes are in barleycorns.

[rat_avatar]

@wolfpup

“change it’s mass”? You use a contraction for “it is” in place of the possessive pronoun? Seriously? You will have more than unit of measure Nazis to worry about if you keep this up, ungrammatical young Schweinehund.

Sorry, is this a bad time?

As I suffer from dyslexic dysgraphia it is just my life

[Buck_Godot]

Totally agree. Outside of a a brief mention in physics class, no one uses a slug as a measure of mass. Pound is a single word that has two definitions, one related to mass (1 pound = 0.453 kg), the other related to force (1 pound = 4.44 newtons). If you can’t tell which one is being used from context then you’re probably too ignorant to be following the discussion in the first place, and when your mom said she was going to vacuum the basement (where you live) you probably ran around looking for a pressure suit.

[watchwolf49]

I’m going to go ahead and support this Pitting, and I give my apologies to the OP as I’m sure my support is the last thing in the world they wanted.

In social and non-scientific discussions, it is rude to the make the distinction between mass and weight. If your supermodel date says she weighs 50 kg, and you correct her that her mass is 50 kg, you will not be getting laid that night. There’s just a level of a “I’m smarter than you” attitude if one splits that particular hair.

However, in some scientific discussion, the distinction is actually critical to the understanding. Weight causes acceleration and is a vector, whereas mass doesn’t cause acceleration and is a scalar. I think it’s just something to keep in the back of your mind and if direction is important to the context, we do need to split that hair.

One pound (force) is about 5 Newtons at MSL … so date a plain girl, she’ll appreciate the attention and put up with your snobbery.

[rat_avatar]

@The_Niply_Elder

Bro, what a dumbass thing to bring up. Alright get ready because I’m going to drop some knowledge on your noggin right now bruh:

w = m * g

weight equals mass times gravity broster.

See? Different things on different sides of the equation bromigo.

Brostronauts up on the ISS experience weightlessness, not masslessness. Not the same thing, in fact you couldn’t make the mass needle shift appreciably in any direction short of starting some broticle-antibroticle reaction going, but that has nothing to do with it. Also in all your pseudointellectualism quoting things from Einstein, Hawking, Penrose whose writing you don’t understand, you are making the clear mistake of confusing “g” (little gee, earth’s gravitational acceleration at sea level) with “G” (big Gee, the gravitational constant). Totally different things brotato chip.

On the ISS experience weightlessness because their path is very close to the geodesic in space time, which also happens to be a good close approximation of an inertial frame which is the ONLY time F=MA was true under Newtonian system. But no I am not confusing G and little g, the attempt to redefine the KG is hampered by our inability to accurately measure little g which has also lead to discoveries that there is more variance in G than we expected.

I am not saying that weight and mass are the same, just that they are measuring the same fundamental property of an object. But the analog to pounds-force in the metric system (not an SI unit) is the kilopond or Kp. Both Kp and and pounds force are low precision measurements which assume an insignificant change in little G. Just like you are assuming the small relativistic differences in mass-energy that an artifact would experience by a change in altitude are an insignificant change on the IIS. It is a question of precision.

I will totally pick up a vizor and some crocs if you can prove to me that GR is wrong…I look forward to seeing The Niply Elder become a nobel laureate.

[rat_avatar]

Also I pit myself for being unable to get any where close to proper formatting on the dope to describe the calculation of the calculation of invariant mass.

I have held back making the this point because it is not intuitive but is mathematically sound.

If you had an item that had, according to a balance scale, the exact same inertial mass as the international prototype of the kilogram on earth and you transported them both to Jupiter they would have the same inertial mass. If you kept the IPK on earth and moved the item to Jupiter they would not have the same relative mass. If the kilogram was defined using it’s invariant mass, where we use the where (four-momentum * covariant four-momentum = M^2) they would be the same.

So the implication here is that the invariant mass would stay the same but requires a change in the observers position to stay the same. This change is special pleading if you claim that inertial mass is a fundamental truth. Why do you get to change your reference frame while disallowing an adjustment to acceleration or little g with weight.

But as far as Newton’s law of motion

m(i)=F/a

and Newton’s law of universal gravitation

F=Gm(g1)m(g2)/R2

All experiments carried out till date have shown that m(g)=m(i) as claimed in the Einstein equivalence principle. This equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is the important part.

This means that the above stated formula of “w = m * g” is the exact same formula “f = m * a” as g(standard gravity or local gravity) is the same fundamental property as a (acceleration)

But to be clear, weight and mass are very useful contexts and the implications of basing a measurement on an assume acceleration rate does have a greater error rate. This fictional force of gravity is also very useful in most situations. But unless they redefine a kilogram as the square root of a a scalar invariant of its four-momentum a kilogram will only always be a kilogram when comparing it to a local, close and non-moving reference kilogram. Because, despite the fact it may not effect the measurement in a meaningful way the total energy can and does change in measurable amounts by effecting it’s total energy which will change it’s inertial mass.

If you don’t make the claim that a kilogram is a kilogram outside of a small segment of spacetime when compared to a prototype kilogram this pit does not apply to you.

[BrainGlutton]

@rat_avatar

As I suffer from dyslexic dysgraphia it is just my life

Psssst! You spelled that right! :smack:

[SteveG1]

@billfish678

Only if they are using it to describe their “hot water” heater

“Why is it a hot water heater, shouldn’t it be a cold water heater?” - George Carlin

Personally, I don’t care what unit of measure is used, provided it is stated and everyone agrees to it.

Meters? Fine. Feet? Fine. Kilograms? Fine. Points? Fine. Just pick one, let us know which one you are using, and stick with it.