willard 0 #26 February 8, 2007 Yep. I know many here would argue the point, but generally speaking any government agency is considered reliable enough to use as a source for data. I know what your getting at, but once again I stress that from the first letter of the first word of my first post I have been speaking of the most commonly used form of pound which is weight. Pound as mass is much less frequently used. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #27 February 8, 2007 Quote I stress that from the first letter of the first word of my first post I have been speaking of the most commonly used form of pound which is weight. Pound as mass is much less frequently used. "not mass" is six letters speaking of the "much less frequent" use. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 February 8, 2007 Quote Do you really expect most people who read that entry in Wikipedia to realize that there is such a system as the poundal system? You know it, I know it, my Prof knows it. But I'll betcha Mary Jane Rottencrotch down the street doesn't know it. Sure, you can pick nits and prove that technically I am wrong, but in the real world most people don't care much for nits. (BTW, pound was a unit of weight long before it was a unit of mass) Nitpicking at its finest is preaching about the difference between mass and weight. Those who know the difference know, and those who don't do not care. If you live your existence on the earth's surface you can live quite happy using pounds as mass. Hell, you can even do it in space - the pounds is simply 1/2.2 kilograms. The danger seems to be with screwing up the math, or inconsistent application with people using other systems. Wikipedia has been demonstrated to have an accuracy on par with encyclopedias. Which yes, is inadequete for university work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #29 February 8, 2007 QuotePoint I was trying to make, that you obviously didn't get, was that people who already know there is a difference between pound-force and pound-mass will know that there is a mass unit called a pound, but those who do not know of the difference will come away from reading that entry thinking that pounds are always units of mass. That is their fault, not Wikipedia's. On a page about mass units. it listed units of mass. It is under no obligation to spell out which units can also be used as weight or force. If people weren't sure then they should have looked up units of weight as well. QuoteThere is a reason every college class I have been in that required a written project specifically stated that Wikipedia is not a reliable enough reference to be included in a bibliography. No one's ever spelled that out in my classes. I think it's pretty much assumed that anyone who's made it into university should be able to figure that one out all by themselves!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #30 February 8, 2007 (thumps forehead on wall)...... I give up. You're right, I'm wrong, pounds multiplied by gravity doesn't equal slugs. Everybody who reads that entry in Wik will automatically know that there is a difference between pound-force and pound-mass. And Wikipedia is the end-all for information, they are never wrong, and anyone who adds something to Wikipedia is always correct. Go ahead and use Wik for a reference. Just don't be surprised when an instructor hands your paper back and tells you it is unacceptable. Have a nice day Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #31 February 8, 2007 QuoteGo ahead and use Wik for a reference. Just don't be surprised when an instructor hands your paper back and tells you it is unacceptable. As I said, my lecturers have never needed to tell me not to use Wikipedia as a reference - because I'm not that stupid! Any moron who actually cites Wikipedia in an essay deserves whatever failing mark it is that they'll get. However, the fact remains that they were correct in the units of mass that they listed. And since the title of your thread is "Why Wikipedia is not an accepted reference" you can excuse me for thinking that we were discussing people with the knowledge and wherewithall to figure out for themselves that some of those units may have double meanings. If the title of your thread had been "Why Wikipedia might mislead some dumbass off the street" then I'd agree with you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #32 February 8, 2007 QuoteYep. I know many here would argue the point, but generally speaking any government agency is considered reliable enough to use as a source for data. I know what your getting at, but once again I stress that from the first letter of the first word of my first post I have been speaking of the most commonly used form of pound which is weight. Pound as mass is much less frequently used. Wiki is still correct and your first post is still wrong. That's all there is to it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #33 February 8, 2007 QuoteIf the title of your thread had been "Why Wikipedia might mislead some dumbass off the street" then I'd agree with you. I probably should have used that as a title. Good call. Yes, I was wrong in saying pounds are not mass, but your last reply pretty much sums up the whole gist of this thread. There are those who do not know the difference and the article can be very misleading to those people. That was my point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #34 February 8, 2007 QuoteI know what your getting at, but once again I stress that from the first letter of the first word of my first post I have been speaking of the most commonly used form of pound which is weight. Pound as mass is much less frequently used. I agree with you, but it still makes Wiki correct in this case. In stead of spending all your energy in DZ.com complaining about Wiki, you could have used that same energy to suggest an edit to Wiki to put in wording along the lines of what you wrote above. That pound is normally associated with weight, but can also be used as a measurement of mass. Wiki, would have still been correct, but you would have helped a simpler mind like mine understand Wiki a bit better. Most people know not to use Wiki as a reference, but it is a hell of a decent start point to try and get some references. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #35 February 8, 2007 If wikipedia is wrong on a technical point, don't bitch about it -- fix it! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #36 February 8, 2007 QuoteIf wikipedia is wrong on a technical point, don't bitch about it -- fix it! Ordinarily I'd agree but in this case it would be a bad move. The wikipedia entry is absolutely correct and the OP should go read the wikipedia entry for weight. He might find it quite satisfying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight Don't waste everyone's time by vandalizing the correct page on mass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #37 February 8, 2007 Quote you could have used that same energy to suggest an edit to Wiki to put in wording along the lines of what you wrote above. That pound is normally associated with weight, but can also be used as a measurement of mass. From the same page on Mass: "(This force is called the weight of the object. In informal usage, the word "weight" is often used synonymously(confused with) with "mass", because the strength of the gravitational field is roughly constant everywhere on the surface of the Earth. In physics, the two terms are distinct: an object will have a larger weight if it is placed in a stronger gravitational field, but its passive gravitational mass remains unchanged.)" Also from the page on Mass: "a unit like the pound is often used to measure either mass or force (e.g. weight)." The OP said pounds were not units of mass, (along with a few other units of mass). An uninformed reader using wiki would have learned something, as the OP should have instead assuming the wiki entry was wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #38 February 8, 2007 QuoteGo ahead and use Wiki for a reference. Just don't be surprised when an instructor hands your paper back and tells you it is unacceptable. Or your launch vehicle CATOs, or you drop a satellite on the floor, or your landing craft smashes into a planet, and you wind up stumbling upon that elusive bad press some people claim didn't exist. Skepticism of sources is healthy, and there's plenty of reasons to be careful with what you read on Wikipedia, but anytime you raise a point (as true as it may be) and support it with such a lame nit-picking example, you can expect to get nit-picked back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #39 February 8, 2007 Quote Skepticism of sources is healthy, and there's plenty of reasons to be careful with what you read on Wikipedia, but anytime you raise a point (as true as it may be) and support it with such a lame nit-picking example, you can expect to get nit-picked back. The point was not true, pound IS a unit of mass, AND wiki mentions the vernacular use all over the place, so the revisionism is particularly lame. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #40 February 8, 2007 What the OP learned was more a lesson of posting in SC. a) If there is any way possible for a reader to find fault in a posting, they will. b)If a reader finds fault in a posting, they will let you know about it...many times over. c)Not all readers will interpret a post in the same spirit in which it was written. In fact, most won't. d)A poster admitting a mistake will not end debate. e)I was mistaken f)Not all who are wrong will admit it. (slugs*32.2=pounds. Always has, always will.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #41 February 8, 2007 QuoteWhat the OP learned was more a lesson of posting in SC. a) If there is any way possible for a reader to find fault in a posting, they will. b)If a reader finds fault in a posting, they will let you know about it...many times over. c)Not all readers will interpret a post in the same spirit in which it was written. In fact, most won't. d)A poster admitting a mistake will not end debate. e)I was mistaken f)Not all who are wrong will admit it. (slugs*32.2=pounds. Always has, always will.) You were wrong. Wiki was right. That's all. PS slugs*32.2=pounds is ONLY correct if the pound is taken as a unit of mass. Otherwise it is dimensionally meaningless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #42 February 8, 2007 QuoteYou were wrong. Wiki was right. That's all. And I admitted as much. Crow tastes nasty. Quoteslugs*32.2=pounds is ONLY correct if the pound is taken as a unit of mass. Otherwise it is dimensionally meaningless. Kallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. In case it's been a while since you read up on the subject let me remind you... F=ma where F is resultant force, m is mass, and a is acceleration. Applied to our equation in question, slugs is the unit of mass, gravity is the acceleration, and the weight is the force. Slugs(m)*gravity@32.2ft/s^2(a)=weight in pounds(F) It's pretty plain and self explanatory that in this equation pounds is weight and not mass If you wish you may at this point directly convert pound-force to pound-mass since they are equal at the gravitational constant of 32.2. You can also write it as Kilograms(m)*gravity@9.8m/sec^2(a)=weight in Newtons(F) You can disagree with that all you want but until you can prove Newton's Laws to be false you will be wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #43 February 8, 2007 QuoteKallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. You didn't specify any units for 32.2, in which case it is dimensionless. Mass times a dimensionless number is still mass Edit: And if you think thats nit-picking, try leaving out ft/s^2 on a high school exam paper and see how many marks you get.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #44 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteKallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. You didn't specify any units for 32.2, in which case it is dimensionless. Mass times a dimensionless number is still mass I didn't feel it was needed to specify that 32.2 was ft/sec^2. I assumed that a physics/engineering professor would know 32.2 wasn't miles/day^2. 32.2, as well as 9.8, are numbers which should be very familiar to a professor and wouldn't need clarification when used in Newton's laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #45 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteKallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. You didn't specify any units for 32.2, in which case it is dimensionless. Mass times a dimensionless number is still mass I didn't feel it was needed to specify that 32.2 was ft/sec^2. I assumed that a physics/engineering professor would know 32.2 wasn't miles/day^2. 32.2, as well as 9.8, are numbers which should be very familiar to a professor and wouldn't need clarification when used in Newton's laws. jakee is 100% correct and you are wrong. If you were in my physics class, your score would be moving into negative territory right now. You can't give up while you're ahead, but you can give up before you get even further behind. Do you argue with your medical doctor about medicine, and with lawyers about the law?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dorbie 0 #46 February 8, 2007 The following document is worth a read: http://www.codeyield.com/funstuff/psp7761121.pdf The summary is of particular relevance to your current predicament. "We propose that those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #47 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. You didn't specify any units for 32.2, in which case it is dimensionless. Mass times a dimensionless number is still mass I didn't feel it was needed to specify that 32.2 was ft/sec^2. I assumed that a physics/engineering professor would know 32.2 wasn't miles/day^2. 32.2, as well as 9.8, are numbers which should be very familiar to a professor and wouldn't need clarification when used in Newton's laws. jakee is 100% correct and you are wrong. If you were in my physics class, your score would be moving into negative territory right now. You can't give up while you're ahead, but you can give up before you get even further behind. Do you argue with your medical doctor about medicine, and with lawyers about the law? If I found myself in your class I would drop. I expect my professors to know Newtons' laws. If a doctor told me eating ramen noodles would cure a broken leg, yes. If a lawer told me to ignore the car with flashing blue lights on top and just drive faster,yes. And if a professor tells me that Newton was wrong, yes, I'll argue with him too. You're not the first professor I have pointed out a mistake to, but you are the first to deny it. Just for clarification, none of my professors require to specify the units in that equation...they are intelligent enough to know what they are without being told. The only place they want to see them is in the final solution, if needed. And I did admit I was wrong, more than once. At least I have the integrity to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #48 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. You didn't specify any units for 32.2, in which case it is dimensionless. Mass times a dimensionless number is still mass I didn't feel it was needed to specify that 32.2 was ft/sec^2. I assumed that a physics/engineering professor would know 32.2 wasn't miles/day^2. 32.2, as well as 9.8, are numbers which should be very familiar to a professor and wouldn't need clarification when used in Newton's laws. jakee is 100% correct and you are wrong. If you were in my physics class, your score would be moving into negative territory right now. You can't give up while you're ahead, but you can give up before you get even further behind. Do you argue with your medical doctor about medicine, and with lawyers about the law? If I found myself in your class I would drop. I expect my professors to know Newtons' laws. If a doctor told me eating ramen noodles would cure a broken leg, yes. If a lawer told me to ignore the car with flashing blue lights on top and just drive faster,yes. And if a professor tells me that Newton was wrong, yes, I'll argue with him too. You're not the first professor I have pointed out a mistake to, but you are the first to deny it. Just for clarification, none of my professors require to specify the units in that equation...they are intelligent enough to know what they are without being told. The only place they want to see them is in the final solution, if needed. And I did admit I was wrong, more than once. At least I have the integrity to do so. Does anyone have a bigger shovel to send him?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #49 February 8, 2007 If you didn't know 32.2 was ft/sec^2, what the hell did you think it was??? Chickens? Duck ankles? This is DZ.com, not one of your physics classes so even if you do require your students to specify units in that equation everytime they write 32.2 or 9.8 don't expect eveyone here to do so. Use the lump on top of your shoulders and figure it out...it's only common sense. If you're not sure, then ask. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #50 February 8, 2007 QuoteIf you didn't know 32.2 was ft/sec^2, what the hell did you think it was??? Chickens? Duck ankles? This is DZ.com, not one of your physics classes so even if you do require your students to specify units in that equation everytime they write 32.2 or 9.8 don't expect eveyone here to do so. Use the lump on top of your shoulders and figure it out...it's only common sense. If you're not sure, then ask. Kind of ironic considering your original post in this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jakee 1,596 #31 February 8, 2007 QuoteGo ahead and use Wik for a reference. Just don't be surprised when an instructor hands your paper back and tells you it is unacceptable. As I said, my lecturers have never needed to tell me not to use Wikipedia as a reference - because I'm not that stupid! Any moron who actually cites Wikipedia in an essay deserves whatever failing mark it is that they'll get. However, the fact remains that they were correct in the units of mass that they listed. And since the title of your thread is "Why Wikipedia is not an accepted reference" you can excuse me for thinking that we were discussing people with the knowledge and wherewithall to figure out for themselves that some of those units may have double meanings. If the title of your thread had been "Why Wikipedia might mislead some dumbass off the street" then I'd agree with you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #32 February 8, 2007 QuoteYep. I know many here would argue the point, but generally speaking any government agency is considered reliable enough to use as a source for data. I know what your getting at, but once again I stress that from the first letter of the first word of my first post I have been speaking of the most commonly used form of pound which is weight. Pound as mass is much less frequently used. Wiki is still correct and your first post is still wrong. That's all there is to it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #33 February 8, 2007 QuoteIf the title of your thread had been "Why Wikipedia might mislead some dumbass off the street" then I'd agree with you. I probably should have used that as a title. Good call. Yes, I was wrong in saying pounds are not mass, but your last reply pretty much sums up the whole gist of this thread. There are those who do not know the difference and the article can be very misleading to those people. That was my point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #34 February 8, 2007 QuoteI know what your getting at, but once again I stress that from the first letter of the first word of my first post I have been speaking of the most commonly used form of pound which is weight. Pound as mass is much less frequently used. I agree with you, but it still makes Wiki correct in this case. In stead of spending all your energy in DZ.com complaining about Wiki, you could have used that same energy to suggest an edit to Wiki to put in wording along the lines of what you wrote above. That pound is normally associated with weight, but can also be used as a measurement of mass. Wiki, would have still been correct, but you would have helped a simpler mind like mine understand Wiki a bit better. Most people know not to use Wiki as a reference, but it is a hell of a decent start point to try and get some references. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #35 February 8, 2007 If wikipedia is wrong on a technical point, don't bitch about it -- fix it! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #36 February 8, 2007 QuoteIf wikipedia is wrong on a technical point, don't bitch about it -- fix it! Ordinarily I'd agree but in this case it would be a bad move. The wikipedia entry is absolutely correct and the OP should go read the wikipedia entry for weight. He might find it quite satisfying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight Don't waste everyone's time by vandalizing the correct page on mass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #37 February 8, 2007 Quote you could have used that same energy to suggest an edit to Wiki to put in wording along the lines of what you wrote above. That pound is normally associated with weight, but can also be used as a measurement of mass. From the same page on Mass: "(This force is called the weight of the object. In informal usage, the word "weight" is often used synonymously(confused with) with "mass", because the strength of the gravitational field is roughly constant everywhere on the surface of the Earth. In physics, the two terms are distinct: an object will have a larger weight if it is placed in a stronger gravitational field, but its passive gravitational mass remains unchanged.)" Also from the page on Mass: "a unit like the pound is often used to measure either mass or force (e.g. weight)." The OP said pounds were not units of mass, (along with a few other units of mass). An uninformed reader using wiki would have learned something, as the OP should have instead assuming the wiki entry was wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #38 February 8, 2007 QuoteGo ahead and use Wiki for a reference. Just don't be surprised when an instructor hands your paper back and tells you it is unacceptable. Or your launch vehicle CATOs, or you drop a satellite on the floor, or your landing craft smashes into a planet, and you wind up stumbling upon that elusive bad press some people claim didn't exist. Skepticism of sources is healthy, and there's plenty of reasons to be careful with what you read on Wikipedia, but anytime you raise a point (as true as it may be) and support it with such a lame nit-picking example, you can expect to get nit-picked back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #39 February 8, 2007 Quote Skepticism of sources is healthy, and there's plenty of reasons to be careful with what you read on Wikipedia, but anytime you raise a point (as true as it may be) and support it with such a lame nit-picking example, you can expect to get nit-picked back. The point was not true, pound IS a unit of mass, AND wiki mentions the vernacular use all over the place, so the revisionism is particularly lame. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #40 February 8, 2007 What the OP learned was more a lesson of posting in SC. a) If there is any way possible for a reader to find fault in a posting, they will. b)If a reader finds fault in a posting, they will let you know about it...many times over. c)Not all readers will interpret a post in the same spirit in which it was written. In fact, most won't. d)A poster admitting a mistake will not end debate. e)I was mistaken f)Not all who are wrong will admit it. (slugs*32.2=pounds. Always has, always will.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #41 February 8, 2007 QuoteWhat the OP learned was more a lesson of posting in SC. a) If there is any way possible for a reader to find fault in a posting, they will. b)If a reader finds fault in a posting, they will let you know about it...many times over. c)Not all readers will interpret a post in the same spirit in which it was written. In fact, most won't. d)A poster admitting a mistake will not end debate. e)I was mistaken f)Not all who are wrong will admit it. (slugs*32.2=pounds. Always has, always will.) You were wrong. Wiki was right. That's all. PS slugs*32.2=pounds is ONLY correct if the pound is taken as a unit of mass. Otherwise it is dimensionally meaningless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #42 February 8, 2007 QuoteYou were wrong. Wiki was right. That's all. And I admitted as much. Crow tastes nasty. Quoteslugs*32.2=pounds is ONLY correct if the pound is taken as a unit of mass. Otherwise it is dimensionally meaningless. Kallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. In case it's been a while since you read up on the subject let me remind you... F=ma where F is resultant force, m is mass, and a is acceleration. Applied to our equation in question, slugs is the unit of mass, gravity is the acceleration, and the weight is the force. Slugs(m)*gravity@32.2ft/s^2(a)=weight in pounds(F) It's pretty plain and self explanatory that in this equation pounds is weight and not mass If you wish you may at this point directly convert pound-force to pound-mass since they are equal at the gravitational constant of 32.2. You can also write it as Kilograms(m)*gravity@9.8m/sec^2(a)=weight in Newtons(F) You can disagree with that all you want but until you can prove Newton's Laws to be false you will be wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #43 February 8, 2007 QuoteKallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. You didn't specify any units for 32.2, in which case it is dimensionless. Mass times a dimensionless number is still mass Edit: And if you think thats nit-picking, try leaving out ft/s^2 on a high school exam paper and see how many marks you get.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #44 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteKallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. You didn't specify any units for 32.2, in which case it is dimensionless. Mass times a dimensionless number is still mass I didn't feel it was needed to specify that 32.2 was ft/sec^2. I assumed that a physics/engineering professor would know 32.2 wasn't miles/day^2. 32.2, as well as 9.8, are numbers which should be very familiar to a professor and wouldn't need clarification when used in Newton's laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #45 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteKallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. You didn't specify any units for 32.2, in which case it is dimensionless. Mass times a dimensionless number is still mass I didn't feel it was needed to specify that 32.2 was ft/sec^2. I assumed that a physics/engineering professor would know 32.2 wasn't miles/day^2. 32.2, as well as 9.8, are numbers which should be very familiar to a professor and wouldn't need clarification when used in Newton's laws. jakee is 100% correct and you are wrong. If you were in my physics class, your score would be moving into negative territory right now. You can't give up while you're ahead, but you can give up before you get even further behind. Do you argue with your medical doctor about medicine, and with lawyers about the law?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #46 February 8, 2007 The following document is worth a read: http://www.codeyield.com/funstuff/psp7761121.pdf The summary is of particular relevance to your current predicament. "We propose that those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #47 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. You didn't specify any units for 32.2, in which case it is dimensionless. Mass times a dimensionless number is still mass I didn't feel it was needed to specify that 32.2 was ft/sec^2. I assumed that a physics/engineering professor would know 32.2 wasn't miles/day^2. 32.2, as well as 9.8, are numbers which should be very familiar to a professor and wouldn't need clarification when used in Newton's laws. jakee is 100% correct and you are wrong. If you were in my physics class, your score would be moving into negative territory right now. You can't give up while you're ahead, but you can give up before you get even further behind. Do you argue with your medical doctor about medicine, and with lawyers about the law? If I found myself in your class I would drop. I expect my professors to know Newtons' laws. If a doctor told me eating ramen noodles would cure a broken leg, yes. If a lawer told me to ignore the car with flashing blue lights on top and just drive faster,yes. And if a professor tells me that Newton was wrong, yes, I'll argue with him too. You're not the first professor I have pointed out a mistake to, but you are the first to deny it. Just for clarification, none of my professors require to specify the units in that equation...they are intelligent enough to know what they are without being told. The only place they want to see them is in the final solution, if needed. And I did admit I was wrong, more than once. At least I have the integrity to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #48 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteKallend, I am surprised. You are saying Newton's Second Law is wrong? Several hundred years of scrutiny have proven that F=ma is fact. You didn't specify any units for 32.2, in which case it is dimensionless. Mass times a dimensionless number is still mass I didn't feel it was needed to specify that 32.2 was ft/sec^2. I assumed that a physics/engineering professor would know 32.2 wasn't miles/day^2. 32.2, as well as 9.8, are numbers which should be very familiar to a professor and wouldn't need clarification when used in Newton's laws. jakee is 100% correct and you are wrong. If you were in my physics class, your score would be moving into negative territory right now. You can't give up while you're ahead, but you can give up before you get even further behind. Do you argue with your medical doctor about medicine, and with lawyers about the law? If I found myself in your class I would drop. I expect my professors to know Newtons' laws. If a doctor told me eating ramen noodles would cure a broken leg, yes. If a lawer told me to ignore the car with flashing blue lights on top and just drive faster,yes. And if a professor tells me that Newton was wrong, yes, I'll argue with him too. You're not the first professor I have pointed out a mistake to, but you are the first to deny it. Just for clarification, none of my professors require to specify the units in that equation...they are intelligent enough to know what they are without being told. The only place they want to see them is in the final solution, if needed. And I did admit I was wrong, more than once. At least I have the integrity to do so. Does anyone have a bigger shovel to send him?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #49 February 8, 2007 If you didn't know 32.2 was ft/sec^2, what the hell did you think it was??? Chickens? Duck ankles? This is DZ.com, not one of your physics classes so even if you do require your students to specify units in that equation everytime they write 32.2 or 9.8 don't expect eveyone here to do so. Use the lump on top of your shoulders and figure it out...it's only common sense. If you're not sure, then ask. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #50 February 8, 2007 QuoteIf you didn't know 32.2 was ft/sec^2, what the hell did you think it was??? Chickens? Duck ankles? This is DZ.com, not one of your physics classes so even if you do require your students to specify units in that equation everytime they write 32.2 or 9.8 don't expect eveyone here to do so. Use the lump on top of your shoulders and figure it out...it's only common sense. If you're not sure, then ask. Kind of ironic considering your original post in this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
