Why Wikipedia is not an accepted reference.

[willard 0]

Yes, quite ironic indeed.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

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.

Kallend assumed it was as it was written, a dimensionless number. Since the equation was written perfectly to give the result of 1 pound mass why assume it would be anything else?

First we'd have to assume you were trying to get a force, then we'd have to assume you were using a consistent system of units (and missions to Mars have crashed for that reason alone).

Why let ambiguity creep into an equation when you could have put exactly what you meant simply by typing ft/s^2?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Yes, quite ironic indeed.

Dig dig dig...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

Kallend assumed it was as it was written, a dimensionless number. Since the equation was written perfectly to give the result of 1 pound mass why assume it would be anything else?

First we'd have to assume you were trying to get a force, then we'd have to assume you were using a consistent system of units (and missions to Mars have crashed for that reason alone).

Why let ambiguity creep into an equation when you could have put exactly what you meant simply by typing ft/s^2?

Because I mistakingly believed he was intelligent enough to assume I was referring to gravity. As I said before, this is not a classroom. People abbreviate all the time, omit things that are assumed. What else could 32.2 be taken as? If there is another constant that has has 32.2 as a scalar I would be happy to know of it. Kallend should have readily recognized the equation as being of the form of Newton's 2nd law. Newtons 2nd is used to state the relationship of mass to acceleration to force. As such 32.2 is obviously gravity. If he failed to pick up on that then I don't know what to say. But don't blame me if he missed it. Any freshman student of math, physics, engineering, etc. is expected to recognize certain equations without being told what they are or what they represent. If he didn't recognize it as such, then maybe it is HE that needs to study a bit. If he wants to insult me, fine. But he has no call to bring into question the credentials of my prof who he doesn't even know. I did talk to my prof today and he restated that he pointed out the entry in Wik as being misleading, not as a total error. Same thing he said yesterday.
There are a lot of things in life that don't need clarified every time they are stated. Speed limits in the US are assumed to be in miles per hour. Fuel mileage in a car is assumed to be miles per gallon.
Wing loading is pounds/ft^2
A persons salary is assumed to be either dollars per hour or dollars per year. Easy to tell apart...not many people would take a job paying $15/year, nor do many people make $35,000/hr. (Though some do).
In physics and engineering, when Newtons 2nd is used 32.2 would be rocognized by most people as gravity. It is only dimensionless if someone fails to make the connection.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes, quite ironic indeed.

Dig dig dig...

Your attitude reminds me of another professor I know. He also redefined what PhD means.

[dorbie 0]

Woof

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

But don't blame me if he missed it.

Bullshit.

If you write an equation for someone else and they fail to interpret it correctly because you didn't bother to put units on it then it is your fault.

Quote

But he has no call to bring into question the credentials of my prof who he doesn't even know. I did talk to my prof today and he restated that he pointed out the entry in Wik as being misleading, not as a total error. Same thing he said yesterday.

Your professor told you guys Wikipedia was misleading, and you started a thread here saying that your professor pointed out that Wikipedia was wrong and that pounds weren't mass at all. Again, who's fault is it that Kallend gained the impression from your post that your professor didn't know pounds were mass? Another example of the importance of clear and precise communication!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[willard 0]

You do realize that graphic puts my percieved ablity and perceived score both at app. the 75th percentile, and the actual score in the 90th.

Thank you for the compliments!

[Kennedy 0]

Wikipedia...

...at least it isn't snopes...

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[willard 0]

Quote

Bullshit.

If you write an equation for someone else and they fail to interpret it correctly because you didn't bother to put units on it then it is your fault.

Double Bullshit.
As I've stated too many times already, that equation is obvious to any engineering or physics student. If you, or Kallend, can't recognize it as such maybe you should check the wants ads. I heard McD's is hiring. This is DZ.com, not MIT.

[willard 0]

Quote

Wikipedia...

...at least it isn't snopes...

Tru. Very true.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Quote

Bullshit.

If you write an equation for someone else and they fail to interpret it correctly because you didn't bother to put units on it then it is your fault.

Double Bullshit.
As I've stated too many times already, that equation is obvious to any engineering or physics student. If you, or Kallend, can't recognize it as such maybe you should check the wants ads. I heard McD's is hiring. This is DZ.com, not MIT.

Sure it's recognisable and sure we knew what you meant. However, as you wrote it, it did mean that 32.2 slugs equals 1 pound mass, which is also a valid equation. Why the hell would you ever want to rely on someone correctly interpreting what you wrote when you could put it beyond any doubt with a mere 6 additional keystrokes?

Just think, for those 6 easy keystrokes you could have saved yourself an additional page of explanation. So if you think about it, being precise really would have been a more economical way of expressing yourself

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[1969912 0]

This is turning into a real Slug-Fest.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bullshit.

If you write an equation for someone else and they fail to interpret it correctly because you didn't bother to put units on it then it is your fault.

Double Bullshit.
As I've stated too many times already, that equation is obvious to any engineering or physics student. If you, or Kallend, can't recognize it as such maybe you should check the wants ads. I heard McD's is hiring. This is DZ.com, not MIT.

Sure it's recognisable and sure we knew what you meant. However, as you wrote it, it did mean that 32.2 slugs equals 1 pound mass, which is also a valid equation. Why the hell would you ever want to rely on someone correctly interpreting what you wrote when you could put it beyond any doubt with a mere 6 additional keystrokes?

Just think, for those 6 easy keystrokes you could have saved yourself an additional page of explanation. So if you think about it, being precise really would have been a more economical way of expressing yourself

But not near as much fun.

Kallend read my post. He had two choices.

1) Ask first and confirm whether or not there were units attached to the 32.2 or if it was strictly a scalar

or

2) send the following meassage...

Quote

So if the dimensionality of the slug is [mass], and the dimensionality on each side of the equals sign MUST be the same, what does that make the dimensionality of the pound according to your equation above?

I don't think you know what you are writing about.

If you don't believe me, ask a physics professor.

Instead of asking for clarification he decided to write an insulting reply.

I may not have my degree yet, but I do have thirty years of working with designers, engineers, chemists, and the man on the shop floor doing the fabrication, much of that time as an interpreter between the two. When someone had a question about a measurement or calculation, they asked. They didn't just jump up and start insulting people.
To say I don't know what I'm writing about is a pretty big judgement for someone who has never met me. All of the clients I dealt with, which included several major cities, U.S.D.O.D., CIA, FBI, Bereau of Mines, Anheuser-Busch, several foreign countries, all branches of the military, and all major explosives manufacturers never ONCE did they say I didn't know what I was talking about. They were very pleased with the work we did and we had a good working relationship, to the point where we were called by the FBI on 9/12/01 asking for our input concerning storage and transport of explosives. But Kallend Almighty knows more than all of them and felt it was easier to call my intelligence into question than to ask for clarification.

[willard 0]

Quote

This is turning into a real Slug-Fest.

Not SLUGS!!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

But not near as much fun.

Kallend read my post. He had two choices.

1) Ask first and confirm whether or not there were units attached to the 32.2 or if it was strictly a scalar

or

2) send the following meassage...

Quote

So if the dimensionality of the slug is [mass], and the dimensionality on each side of the equals sign MUST be the same, what does that make the dimensionality of the pound according to your equation above?

I don't think you know what you are writing about.

If you don't believe me, ask a physics professor.

Instead of asking for clarification he decided to write an insulting reply.

I may not have my degree yet, but I do have thirty years of working with designers, engineers, chemists, and the man on the shop floor doing the fabrication, much of that time as an interpreter between the two. When someone had a question about a measurement or calculation, they asked. They didn't just jump up and start insulting people.
To say I don't know what I'm writing about is a pretty big judgement for someone who has never met me. All of the clients I dealt with, which included several major cities, U.S.D.O.D., CIA, FBI, Bereau of Mines, Anheuser-Busch, several foreign countries, all branches of the military, and all major explosives manufacturers never ONCE did they say I didn't know what I was talking about. They were very pleased with the work we did and we had a good working relationship, to the point where we were called by the FBI on 9/12/01 asking for our input concerning storage and transport of explosives. But Kallend Almighty knows more than all of them and felt it was easier to call my intelligence into question than to ask for clarification.

dig dig dig. You must be halfway to China.

The equation you wrote was exactly correct if, and only if, you were using the pound as a unit of mass, which is exactly contradictory to what you wrote in your first post. Your equation, as written, was NOT equivalent to f = ma regardless of what you might think it meant.

Since your equation was correct for pounds as mass units and ONLY for pounds as mass units, why should I be obliged to think you had written an (incorrect) equation for pounds as force units just because you were too lazy to do it properly?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[willard 0]

I had been refering to the pound as WEIGHT. Why the fuck would I change it to mass in the middle of an equation? Evidently you're not smart enough to figure out something that simple.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I had been refering to the pound as WEIGHT. Why the fuck would I change it to mass in the middle of an equation? Evidently you're not smart enough to figure out something that simple.

Irony score 12/10.

Maybe because your "EQUATION" was dimensionally incorrect for pounds being weight and correct for pounds being mass. At that time I had no reason to assume you were so confused as I now know you to be.

did dig dig.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

Quote

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.

I thought his point was that Wikipedia was not an accepted reference (which is true) and he was trying to support it by pointing out that someone had carelessly listed pounds among units of mass, when it fact it is only sometimes a unit of mass (which is a lame nit-picking example.)

Now I'm a bit befuddled, however, as to what his point is. It's not clear now if it ever was.

[willard 0]

Evidently you're not smart enough to figure out something that simple. Stll true.
Equation in the form of Newtons 2nd law....we are discussing weight vs. mass......a mass unit is given....a unit is given that could be either weight or mass depending on the situation......and a figure that is obvious to any freshman engineering or physics student as the gravitational constant force.....and you thought it was a mass-mass conversion??
Common sense score....1/10
I think you're the one who is confused.


chirp chirp chirp

[Icon134 0]

actually one of the things I really like about Wiki is that the "definitions" include links within the entries...

for example in the Mass entry referenced in this thread the pounds referenced is specifically the mass version of pound... and to boot the Wiki entry goes on to explain the difference Pound mass and pound force.

Now that's not to say that Wiki is wrong sometimes and I'm not going to get not going to get into an arguement but I've generally found it to be fairly accurate... in general one can't blame the entry in an encyclopedia (even the Wikipedia one) if someone is too lazy to read the entire entry...

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

I thought his point was that Wikipedia was not an accepted reference (which is true) and he was trying to support it by pointing out that someone had carelessly listed pounds among units of mass, when it fact it is only sometimes a unit of mass (which is a lame nit-picking example.)

Now I'm a bit befuddled, however, as to what his point is. It's not clear now if it ever was.

That is exactly what the point of my original post was. But a certain professor, who wouldn't use a roll of toilet paper unless it was specifically marked as such, was confused by a simple equation.

[champu 1]

Quote

That is exactly what the point of my original post was. But a certain professor, who wouldn't use a roll of toilet paper unless it was specifically marked as such, was confused by a simple equation.

I never said I hadn't read the thread, I just said the intended destination of the man at the helm was no longer apparent.

You do have a goal here, do you not? It would be a shame to expend this much effort if that weren't the case.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Evidently you're not smart enough to figure out something that simple. Stll true.
Equation in the form of Newtons 2nd law....we are discussing weight vs. mass......a mass unit is given....a unit is given that could be either weight or mass depending on the situation......and a figure that is obvious to any freshman engineering or physics student as the gravitational constant.....and you thought it was a mass-mass conversion??
Common sense score....1/10
I think you're the one who is confused.


chirp chirp chirp

Whoa, watch the terminology. Acceleration due to the force of gravity (~32.2 ft/sec^2 or ~9.81 m/sec^2 on earth) is different from the (Universal) Gravitational Constant.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Evidently you're not smart enough to figure out something that simple. Stll true.
Equation in the form of Newtons 2nd law....we are discussing weight vs. mass......a mass unit is given....a unit is given that could be either weight or mass depending on the situation......and a figure that is obvious to any freshman engineering or physics student as the gravitational constant.....and you thought it was a mass-mass conversion??
Common sense score....1/10
I think you're the one who is confused.


chirp chirp chirp

You are truly out of your depth discussing physics. I hope you never have to pass a quantum mechanics class with your concept of dimensional consistency.

Several people have now pointed out the exact same thing to you, but you keep digging and digging.



PS the gravitational constant is 6.67300 × 10-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. Sorry to burst your bubble again. Reference here since you clearly won't believe me otherwise.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.