skyhighkiy 0 #1 November 2, 2004 Yeah, what the question said....KG is a measure of mass, not weight....so shouldn't they be saying, "what's your mass"? and how does onego about developing a scale taht measures someone's kg rather than weight? weight=M x G BE THE BUDDHA! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #2 November 2, 2004 QuoteYeah, what the question said....KG is a measure of mass, not weight....so shouldn't they be saying, "what's your mass"? and how does onego about developing a scale taht measures someone's kg rather than weight? weight=M x G Do you smoke drugs a lot? KG is Kilogram an interchangeable measure of mass, volume, and weight. It is also the standard that everyone in the world uses except the USA. Why? who knows, it is easier to do math in the metric system because everything is divisible by 10. A kg is 2.2 lbs. A kg is also exactly what a litre of water weighs. It is so much easier but the US always has to screw something up. ~Chachi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #3 November 2, 2004 Sure, might be simple if you knew what the hell a litre is Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lostinspace 0 #4 November 2, 2004 QuoteSure, might be simple if you knew what the hell a litre is Duh?!?!?!?! it is 0.001 of a cubic metre Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #5 November 2, 2004 A litre is equal to 0.03531 - cubic foot 61.02 - cubic inches 0.00629 - barrel pretroleum 0.2642 - gallon 1.057 - quart 2.113 - pint 8.454 - gill 33.81 - fluid ounce 270.5 - fluid dram 16230 - minim Does that help. ~Chachi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #6 November 2, 2004 Yeah yeah yeah...then I ask you what a meter is and you give me some bunk about the circumfrence of the earth. Now everytime I want to weigh a bag of apples at the grocery I have to get in a space ship, measure the earth, and do a bunch of conversions. And you guys are saying WE have to make it tough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #7 November 2, 2004 QuoteYeah yeah yeah...then I ask you what a meter is and you give me some bunk about the circumfrence of the earth. Now everytime I want to weigh a bag of apples at the grocery I have to get in a space ship, measure the earth, and do a bunch of conversions. And you guys are saying WE have to make it tough. Actually a metre is = to 3.333333ft Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lostinspace 0 #8 November 2, 2004 Are you questioning english versus SI units or measurment of mass vs weight? if it is the latter, then ... Scales measure force, not mass. If you know the weight of something and what gravity is where you are, ie what ever planet you are on, you can calculate the mass of the object that you are weighing. If you took your scale to the moon, it would show that you weight less, even though you would still be as massive as you were on the earth .It is not measuring your mass. Weight is a Force, units can be Kilograms-force - kgf, pond, slug, pound-force lbf or the proper SI unit of newton (symbol N), which is equivalent to kg·m·s-2 . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #9 November 2, 2004 Quote8.454 - gill 16230 - minim Well, shit...why didn't you say so? Now I get it. For crying out loud I was coming home from Vegas last week and the British chick on the plane next to me is telling me how she spent a fortnight out there? What the hell does that mean? She went out in the desert and made a fort to stay in for the night? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #10 November 2, 2004 QuoteQuoteSure, might be simple if you knew what the hell a litre is Duh?!?!?!?! it is 0.001 of a cubic metre Oh my god, Then a cubic meter of water must weigh a ton Makes life easier Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #11 November 2, 2004 QuoteQuote8.454 - gill 16230 - minim Well, shit...why didn't you say so? Now I get it. For crying out loud I was coming home from Vegas last week and the British chick on the plane next to me is telling me how she spent a fortnight out there? What the hell does that mean? She went out in the desert and made a fort to stay in for the night? Those are your ridiculous measurements, not ours. See, even you think your confusing. ~Chachi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lostinspace 0 #12 November 2, 2004 Um, You would also have to know where the earth's gravitational centre is. I thought you were making fun of Silly Brit's lack of spelling skills. Units suck. I stop using the after i graduated. QuoteYeah yeah yeah...then I ask you what a meter is and you give me some bunk about the circumfrence of the earth. Now everytime I want to weigh a bag of apples at the grocery I have to get in a space ship, measure the earth, and do a bunch of conversions. And you guys are saying WE have to make it tough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccurley 1 #13 November 2, 2004 Back in the sixties the US signed up to change to metric at the same time Canada was going to convert. But the US, in what now seems to be a bit of a tradition, (like Kyoto) renieged on the agreement and decided not to go ahead and be in line with the rest of the world. Why? I suppose big business and thier mouthpiecies in Washington claimed it would be too expensive. I think a good question would be how many countries aside from the US still use the antiquated and confusing imperial system?Watch my video Fat Women http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRWkEky8GoI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyhighkiy 0 #14 November 2, 2004 My comment was on the terminoology used. "I WEIGH 100 kg) something like that Unless I"m sadly mistaken, the definition of weight is an object's mass multiplied by the gravitational pull of (in the case of being on the earth) the earth, which is the mass times 9.81 m/s^2 please, someone help me out if I'm wrong. BE THE BUDDHA! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BGill 0 #15 November 2, 2004 Quote A litre is equal to ... 8.454 - gill Huh? what? I weigh how much? You callin me fat??? (typo edit) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #16 November 2, 2004 QuoteYeah, what the question said....KG is a measure of mass, not weight....so shouldn't they be saying, "what's your mass"? and how does onego about developing a scale taht measures someone's kg rather than weight? weight=M x G Somebody want to really confuse this guy an explain the difference between a English gallon an a American gallon Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lostinspace 0 #17 November 2, 2004 yes, weight of an object is the force of gravity acting on it. It is calculated using the following formula: Weight (N) = Mass (kg) x g (N/kg or m/s2) ----------------------- Aftre english units are eliminated, I think gage sizes should be eliminated. and American thread sizes QuoteMy comment was on the terminoology used. "I WEIGH 100 kg) something like that Unless I"m sadly mistaken, the definition of weight is an object's mass multiplied by the gravitational pull of (in the case of being on the earth) the earth, which is the mass times 9.81 m/s^2 please, someone help me out if I'm wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lostinspace 0 #18 November 3, 2004 QuoteSomebody want to really confuse this guy an explain the difference between a English gallon an a American gallon Right after some explains the difference between classic and quantum gravity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #19 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteSomebody want to really confuse this guy an explain the difference between a English gallon an a American gallon Right after some explains the difference between classic and quantum gravity Thats easy, classic gravity is when an apple falls on your head Quantity gravity is when a kilo of apples fall on your head Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiver30960 0 #20 November 3, 2004 I'm really bummed that Darkwing hasn't chimed in on this thread. I think he hangs mostly to the Gear and Rigging forum... Elvisio "fun with physics" Rodriguez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #21 November 3, 2004 I am a scientist. We always use the metric system in the lab, so I know how much a liter or kilo etc. is. If you're going to do science, you have to use a measuring system that makes sense & converts easily between mass/volume/linear distance etc. As opposed to using some f&*ked up medieval system based on the size of some king's foot. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #22 November 3, 2004 Yeah! We should all measure stuff in Stone! I am absolutely svelte when measured in Stone! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lostinspace 0 #23 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteSomebody want to really confuse this guy an explain the difference between a English gallon an a American gallon Right after some explains the difference between classic and quantum gravity Thats easy, classic gravity is when an apple falls on your head Quantity gravity is when a kilo of apples fall on your head is this thread going to turn into the quantitative vs qualitative gravity debate? --------------------- side note my personal research has shown given engineer+single yields 1st dates >> 2cd dates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #24 November 3, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteSomebody want to really confuse this guy an explain the difference between a English gallon an a American gallon Right after some explains the difference between classic and quantum gravity Thats easy, classic gravity is when an apple falls on your head Quantity gravity is when a kilo of apples fall on your head Whoops get confusing for a minute miss read quantum Ok here goes. We consider the application of the 'consistent lattice quantum gravity' approach we introduced recently to the situation of a Friedmann cosmology and also to Bianchi cosmological models. This allows us to work out in detail the computations involved in the determination of the Lagrange multipliers that impose consistency of the discretized equations, and the implications of this determination. It also allows us to study the removal of the Big Bang singularity. Different discretizations can be achieved depending on the version of the classical theory chosen as a starting point and their relationships studied. We analyse in some detail how the continuum limit arises in various models. In particular, we note how remnants of the symmetries of the continuum theory are embodied in constants of the motion of the consistent discrete theory. The unconstrained nature of the discrete theory allows the consistent introduction of a relational time in quantum cosmology, free from the usual conceptual problems. The examples show that in simple settings the proposal works satisfactorily. Hope that answers your question Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lostinspace 0 #25 November 3, 2004 QuoteIf you're going to do science, you have to use a measuring system that makes sense & converts easily between mass/volume/linear distance etc. "have to" is a very strong term. I bet I can prove you wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
