Thanks for this video; I much appreciate ACTUAL science, facts and data over drivel. I nearly fell off my chair when I found Pawel's video; I had no idea people actually believed these things in this day and age. Ah, Dogma.
Though length is easy enough to comprehend, mass is more involved. In his second law of motion, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) defined mass as the ratio of force to gravity. This, of course, is a statement that belongs to the realm of physics;"
By the way - I didn´t tell you yet: I´m working on a book called "Contributions to a Phenomenology of Denial"
(orig. title: Beiträge zu einer Phänomenologie der Verleugnung). You made my day! I collected another 20 pages or so thanks to you! Other guys appearing: PawelKolasa, flatterearth, soundznice, and some others..
@shanedk Clearly ignorance works for you. I would quote you where he has admitted he was wrong, but I have already and it did not penetrate through your ignorance so I doubt re quoting it will help. I even quoted a nasa scientist contradicting your stupidity, but again your ignorance has won over.
"In everyday usage, the mass of an object given in kilograms is often referred to as its weight, which is the measure of the gravitational force—or heaviness—of an object."
@shanedk You do not understand the science that is the problem, that is why I quoted your source on the matter.
In the scientific sense 1kg would weigh 1/6kg on the moon. It is clearly to complexed for you to work out. W=mg. It would need 1/6 of the force to leave the moons atmosphere than it needed to leave Earth.
Now that is the fact of kg.
If you can show me that kp is not derived from Earth's gravity then your second persona's argument would hold up. But this like kg is dependent in g.
@shanedk You can convert one to the other, I did not say they where equal units of measurement, I said they are both depend on force of g excreted on it, and are measurements of weight and not mass. Or another way to put it would be the mass of 1 litre of water = 1kg within a 9.8N g field. Alter the g field and you get this. 1l=166.6g/1.63n The mass remains constant the variable's to weigh the mass alters.
@shanedk Yes you can stupid. The same way we can convert kg in to lb. You do know the meaning of convert right?
No you are wrong. Stop miss quoting the first paragraph of wikipedia, read further to where it explains it is relative to g.
And if if you think N does not measure g then there really is no hope for you, you might as well join your local church and pray that something comes and saves you.
@TCupUK "Stop miss quoting the first paragraph of wikipedia, read further to where it explains it is relative to g."
YOU are the one misquoting it; we've proven that.
The bit after yours:
"Weight given in kilograms is technically the non‑SI unit of measure known as the kilogram-force. The equivalent unit of force in the avoirdupois system of measurement is the pound-force. In strict scientific contexts, forces are typically measured with the SI unit newton."
@shanedk "we" That will be you and your alter ego. And you have proved nothing, get me a professor preferably of physics that agree with you. And you better get you money together so I can cash in on this stupidity of yours and your alter ego.
@TCupUK Oh, and how does the Wikipedia article start out?
"The kilogram or kilogramme (symbol: kg) is the base unit of MASS in the International System of Units and is defined as being equal to the MASS of the International Prototype Kilogram (IPK), which is almost exactly equal to the mass of one liter of water." (emphases mine)
@shanedk "In everyday usage, the mass of an object given in kilograms is often referred to as its weight, which is the measure of the gravitational force—or heaviness—of an object. Weight given in kilograms is technically the non‑SI unit of measure known as the kilogram-force."
@shanedk You could not debunk your way out of a kids maze. Your so stupid. Get me that physical professor if you can not find a physics professor. I provided quotes from Nasa and you still think your right, your so stupid.
"Q: Weight given in kg is technically the non‑SI unit of measure known as the kg-force."
Yor interpretation of this sentence is wrong (I admit it´s ambiguous):
What is means: If someone (erroneosly) gives (speaks of) weight in kg then the real quantity "behind it" is weight in kg-force! The word technically in this context means: "to be exact".
Try to read it again this way round, and you´re there! I`m sure shanedk misunderstood that too cause this way its ok!
"Quote: Weight given in kilograms is technically the non‑SI unit of measure known as the kilogram-force."
Yor interpretation of this sentence is wrong (I admit it´s ambiguous):
What is means: If someone (erroneosly) gives (speaks of) weight in kg then the real quantity "behind it" is weight in kilogram-force! The word technically in this context means: "to be exact".
Try to read it again this way round, and you´re there! I`m sure shanedk misunderstood that too cause this way its ok!
@pelikan88 No, it sounds like I had it right: using kilograms for "weight" is just something that lay people do, but it doesn't conform to any proper usage of "kg."
"The kilogram is a unit of mass, the measurement of which corresponds to the general, everyday notion of how “heavy” something is. Physically speaking, mass is an inertial property; that is, the tendency of an object to remain at constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. Or in other words, not in the scientific sense of mass." Your so stupid.
@TCupUK "Physically speaking, mass is an inertial property; that is, the tendency of an object to remain at constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force."
Yes, and does that tendency to be acted upon by an outside force change when it's on the moon? NO IT DOES NOT!!!
@shanedk Hi shandk, you´re doing a great job here! Doesn´t make me feel so all alone. TCupUK is like a hydra (which is not exactly an intelligent animal). You cut his head with a letal argument, thinking you´re done, and the SAME head jumps out again in asudden! Man, I got plain business to do - but OTOH I just can´t resist to induce an AHA-moment in this fool. Thanks for hlp even if it´s not adressed to me
"Nothing serves better to give a notion of infinity than human stupidity" Karl Kraus 1918
@TCupUK 23 hours before I pasted this from Wiki (as a CRUCIAL reply to the SAME Wiki-quote you´re bothering shanedk again with here :
""When an object’s weight (its gravitational force) is expressed in kilograms, the unit of measure is NOT A TRUE kilogram; it is the kilogram-force (kgf or kg-f), also known as the kilopond (kp), which is a non-SI unit of force". End Wiki
Your quotation is (deliberateliy?) torn out of context!" End Quote.
All that´s left was to accuse Wiki being wrong. DO YOU?
Oh, you think you will get away by quietly turning over to our side by simply avoiding all the fallacies you posted, hoping we´d not notice and already had forgotten about them?? No way!
It took you WEEKS to peform the latest cutback ( "in everday use") and now you´re acting as this was always clear to you! We recall your efforts to cut the everyday use passage out of every wiki quote you posted.
How about the bet? Or may I say in advance: You`r a FUCKING LIAR and a really BAD LOSER?
@TCupUK "Funny, pelikan has admitted he was wrong and I was right on many occasions now."
Sorry but NO! Except of my mistake ( I corrected that adressed to shanedk + you IMMEDIATELY) due to fatigue (where I(!) corrected your + into a * and thus - not being able to see the wood because of all the trees (german saying) - prolonged YOUR mistake (g-force instead of a) I didn`t make any mistake.
I even pardoned YOUR mistake as a SLIP (look it up!).
You were right MANY times - but only quoting Wiki!
"Simply fact is if you weigh 80kg on Earth you will not weigh that on the moon."
I makes no sense to discuss that anymore, because that sentence strictly spoken doesn´t literally make ANY SENSE (look up "logical positivism" in Wiki). Because it can´t neither be proved nor disproved - because don´t weigh in kg in scientific terms...
As I told you xtimes before: Reconsider your concept of weight!
Im not in the mood to go thru all that again in vain, so let´s focus on our wager!
@pelikan88 Get your professor and get him to post here. I will validate his credentials and accept it as fact if he agree with you. You do this and I will concede. I will wage what ever you like, as I am that confident that you will not even be able to find one.
Fine! In my post I wanted YOU to choose the TWO professors (regular professors (physicists) at a stately Europ. Univ.), but if forgot that you have text comprehension problems even if the advantage is on your side.
To nail it down, im working on a standardized questionnaire (maybe 5-10 questions) where only Y and N are allowed as answers - it`s the only way to prevent inaccuracies. Of course you may see and dicuss (o my!) it before. If not ALL qu. are answered with yes, you win!
@TCupUK By the way: This professors will not "post here" - you will receive a registered and official letter stamped by the University/professor which will be granted as genuine by a notary beforehand.
Fees and the like will be split in half and are to be paid in advance. No second exit here, man!
Quote: "Though length is easy enough to comprehend, mass is more involved."
This is WRONG. Mass is a basic dimension in SI, just as length is.
Quote: "In his second law of motion, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) defined mass as the ratio of force to gravity."
This is WRONG. He defined: F = ma. Yes, baby, I know it´s just an algebraic transformation and both of them are MATHEMATICALLY correct. But the point is: Mass is BASIC, not a function of anything, thus not "more involved". W is!
Lex II: Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.
Transl.18th century: Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impress'd; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impress'd.
Does he talk about mass explicitly here? No. He talks about force (vi motrici)! Latin vi is 3.case of the noun vis, which means force!
@TCupUK You retard contradict yourself without even realizing! Quotes (your words): a.) "We weigh less on the moon in KG, or (N) but our mass remains the same." b.) "Your mass will remain the same wherever you are in the universe..." c.) "The moon's mass is (7.35 x 10 22 kg)". In c.) you accept that the unit of mass is kg. This combined with b.) concludes to: we "weigh" the same in kg (being the unit of mass) - be it moon or earth! So your a.) is wrong! Kg = the SI unit of mass NOT WEIGHT
@pelikan88 "Retard", I can see your level of education clearly.
Let me politely correct your error.
"One kilogram of mass in a 9.80665 m/s2 GRAVITATIONAL FIELD (standard gravity, a conventional value approximating the average magnitude of gravity on Earth).[1] Therefore one kilogram-force is by definition equal to 9.80665 N.[2][3] Similarly, a gram-force is 9.80665 mN, and a milligram-force is 9.80665 µN."
Wikipedia.
Alter the gravitational filed and it alters the weight of the object eg KG.
"When an object’s weight (its gravitational force) is expressed in kilograms, the unit of measure is NOT A TRUE kilogram; it is the kilogram-force (kgf or kg-f), also known as the kilopond (kp), which is a non-SI unit of force".
Your quotation is (deliberateliy?) torn out of context!
"Why don´t you quote the sentence before ? : IN EVERYDAY USAGE, the mass of an object given in kilograms is often referred to as its weight... " This TECHNICALLY only...
Your quote from Wiki: "One kilogram of mass in a 9.80665 m/s2 GRAVITATIONAL FIELD (standard gravity, a conventional value approximating the average magnitude of gravity on Earth).[1] Therefore one kilogram-force is by definition equal to 9.80665 N.[2][3] Similarly, a gram-force is 9.80665 mN, and a milligram-force is 9.80665 µN."
Very nicely pasted! But what you are missing is that Wiki correctly mentiones kilogram-FORCE and NOT kilogram, which are quite different beasts! Idiot!!
Quote: "The conversion is 9,8 to convert KG in to (N). Fact! fact! fact!"
1.) The term conversion is wrong. Mass and weight are two different physical "DIMENSIONS" (quantities)! You can´t "convert" one dimension into another! Look up SI in Wiki. By the way, and to be exact, weight isnt even a dimension, it´s derived from the dimensions MASS, TIME, and LENGHT.
2.) The term conversion in physics is defined as comparing two UNITS of the SAME dim. via a corrective constant. ctd.
Although the symbol g is sometimes incorrectly used for standard gravity, g (without a suffix) strictly means the local acceleration due to local gravity and centrifugal acceleration, which VARIES depending on one's position on Earth.
g VARIES, thus is NOT a constant, so no conversion is possible. g0 ("g zero") IS a (quasi)constant, but only by ACCORDANCE as the AVERAGE/STANDARD of gravity on earth. ctd
g differs on earth. in Oslo it´s about 9.9 whereas in Singapur it´s about 9.7. Therefore things DO weigh (in N) less in Singapur than in Oslo in REALITY. The fact that (precise)scales show the same result no matter in Sing. or Oslo is because they ARE CALIBRATED in accout of local g. If you use THE SAME scale here and there, it will show DIFFERENT results!!! This of course only applies to spring scale type scales and not counterbalanced scales measuring kg.
Your post: "meh, do you even comprehend what you write?"
Looks like projection in the Freudian sense to me! Everytime you post something right, it´s not posted, it´s PASTED. But then you don´t draw even nearly correct conclusions out of that, no! Just the opposite: all that follows is plain BULLSHIT! So I doubt your brain is capable of autonomous thinking, and DEEP IN YOUR HEART you know that and project this disability into others, trying to get rid of it!
Nothing to say against pasting per se! But everything you "derive" from the pasted text is 100% BULLSHIT! This is quite sad, woulndn´t you agree? My advice: stay away from any PISA-test concerning text comprehension!
80 kg on Earth, 80kg on the moon etc etc is completely false. The strength of the gravity on the planet/rock you are on will dictate your weight. Your mass will remain the same, but your weight will vary.
@shanedk It does not matter how many time you say it, you will still be wrong.
Weight and mass are not the same things.
Your mass will remain the same wherever you are in the universe, your weight will vary depending of the gravitational force exerted by the planetary body you are on. This is why you would weigh more on Jupiter.
Please refrain from using capitals, ridicule is not a basis of an argument..
FYI, I do not think the Earth is static, I am just correcting your error.
@TCupUK So I say "GRAMS...MEASURES...MASS...NOT...WEIGHT!!! " And you come back with:
"Weight and mass are not the same things"
Okay, YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR!!! YOU were shown to be wrong and now you're trying to claim I said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I did!!!
"Your mass will remain the same wherever you are in the universe" Yes, and KILOGRAMS MEASURE MASS!!! Therefore, "80 kg on Earth, 80kg on the moon" IS FUCKING CORRECT!!!
@shanedk My opening statement was that we do not weigh the same on the moon as we do here. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to access this information. Google can provide you with all the facts you need. But I doubt your ignorance will pay any attention.
I have shown you where you are wrong, and your response is to have a sissy fit about it. So be it!
@TCupUK No, your opening statement was "80 kg on Earth, 80kg on the moon etc etc is completely false." THAT statement is completely false!
"I have shown you where you are wrong,"
How FUCKING DELUDED do you have to be to think that??? I even referenced you to the NIST saying EXACTLY what I did! And you have provided NOTHING WHATSOEVER to back it up! It is the WEIGHT--measured in NEWTONS--that changes, NOT the MASS measured in KILOGRAMS!
No amount of your pathetic insults will change that.
Unless you also want to add one to the fact that the gravitational component is acceleration (m/s^2) and separate from the mass (kg) component in determining weight.
"3.) Examples above show clearly, that weight (kp, N) can not be directly converted into mass (kg); the only correlation would be due to a constant gravitational acceleration (g)"
@TCupUK "Please refrain from using capitals, ridicule is not a basis of an argument.."
Better than being a FUCKING LIAR.
"I am just correcting your error."
Except, as I CLEARLY showed, I MADE NO ERROR. I was VERY clear in the video, as well as all the other times I had to deal with self-superior pseudo-intellectuals like you who say INCREDIBLY wrong things and then LIE when they're called on it!
@TCupUK If you really think you would impress anyone with your lousy BSc you almost force me to show you mine!
I was promoted Ph.D. in 1989 at the University of Vienna, Austria. Mostly I´ve been working on Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. I was dealing with subjects like the Kopenhagen Interpretation of Quantum mechanics, for example.
What we are talking here is merely fast food - but if one hasn´t got teeth in his brain even fast food apparently takes a long time to swallow...
@pelikan88 Wow, I am still bothering with this troll.
I correcting your error in my last reply explaining that weight as in Kg is effected by g excreted on it. If g is greater than a KG will weigh more. To get them to weigh as one Kg for the same amount of mass would require recalculating the scales to account for the increase in g force excreted on your mass.
You do understand that m creates g that creates W right?
Well you should do now. :pftt this is like teaching school kids.
Q: "If g is greater than a KG will weigh more". Yes it will weigh more, but more kp, not kg!!!! kg DOES NOT measure weight!
Scales (weighing kp) ARE being recalculated depending on local g all over the world (which proves Pawel wrong by the way) in a way that the READOUT of kg matches RREADOUT of kp, because the interest is to determine mass not weight (which is incorrectly used in common language). What would be the need of this procedure if kg was kp????
@pelikan88 You asked and answered a question and still got it wrong according to you. If g is greater than a kg will weigh more. You say yes and then argue why it does not. 1 kg·m/s² ≈ 0.10197 kp
"If g is greater than a kg will weigh more." Let me translate (just to be sure): The greater g (or any acceleration) is, the more one kg does weigh. If that is what you mean: yes, this is true! A mass BEING (NOT "wheighing"!) 1 kg can weigh 0.5 kp or 2 kp or whatever, depending on a. But this is the best proof that kp is NOT kg.
Quote: "Weight is at best an estimate." First of all: who cares? Does this play one role in our discussion?
@pelikan88 Let me specify my last post in precaution of your marginal polemic replies: Of course force isn´t always a vector (it´s a quaternion), and of course you can moan about one or the other expression/definition I missed to state comprehensively or failsafe, valid in every context - but this cannot touch the core of the message in OUR context: the scale example...
Let´s try it another way: Acceleration always has a DIRECTION, (loosely spoken) force is always a VECTOR, so weight is a vector too, whereas mass has NO vector (but apparently is generating a FIELD which is radial and omnidirectional thus being a scalar). If you put 1 kg @g0 on a spring scale and let it hang down, it weighs 1 kp. If you (try to) let it hang UP (reversing the scale), it will weigh MINUS 1 kp (contracting the spring). Now: is that a difference or what?
We are moving in a hamster wheel (where the hamster is you) which I´m tired of. All has been said. In vain.
It´s perfectly clear to me now that
a.) either you haven´t got the brains to comprehend anything above a certain (pretty low) level.
b.) or you simply don´t WANT to know (creationist denial syndrome)
c.) or you´re a troll.
So let the professors decide! I´m waiting for your comments on my proposals concerning the procedere of our wager! I will not answer any other crap anymore.
@TCupUK I just don´t believe it!!! Is there any logic left in your brain?
You wrote: "Your mass will remain the same wherever you are in the universe, your weight will vary depending of the gravitational force exerted by the planetary body you are on. This is why you would weigh more on Jupiter."
Yes, yes, yes again! You DO WEIGH (=N) more on Jup., but "your mass remains the same" (YOUR own words!!). Since mass is kg, kg will stay the same! Congrats, YOU PROVED YOURSELF WRONG!
@TCupUK From the NIST Guide to the SI: gooDOTgl/C2TZj
"In science and technology, the weight of a body in a particular reference frame is defined as the force that gives the body an acceleration equal to the local acceleration of free fall in that reference frame. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight defined in this way is the newton (N)."
"Example: The local force of gravity on a copper sphere of mass 10 kg located on the surface of the Earth, which is its weight at that location, is approximately 98 N."
"In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb “to weigh” means “to determine the mass of” or “to have a mass of.”"
@shanedk The moon's gravitational force is only 17% of the Earth's gravity. For example, a 100 pound (45 kg) person would weigh only 17 pounds (7.6 kg) on the Moon.
So like I said originally, you would not weigh the same on the moon as you do Earth.
Shocking how you are defending an indefensible point.
@TCupUK "So like I said originally, you would not weigh the same on the moon as you do Earth."
I NEVER SAID YOU DID, YOU PATHETIC LIAR!!!
"a 100 pound (45 kg) person would weigh only 17 pounds (7.6 kg) on the Moon."
WRONG!!! PATHETICALLY wrong! The CORRECT statement is: a 100 pound (45 kg) person would weigh only 17 pounds (45 kg) on the Moon. Because KILOGRAMS MEASURE WEIGHT NOT MASS!!!
Just a pathetic attempt to discredit me. You're not one of those League of Reason assholes, are you?
@shanedk You clearly do not have the mental capacity to comprehend. The mass of your brain appears insufficient.
I am a computer scientist BSc HoN.
It is because you are wrong that I even bothered to comment.
it really does not bother me if you wish to remain ignorant of the facts, it is more for other people who listen to your shit and think you may know what you are talking about, when I can assure you and them that you do not.
@TCupUK What about EdInformatics, are they wrong, too? gooDOTgl/AnoFj
"Now suppose that you go to the moon or to a space station, but you do not eat too much or start a diet. Then the number for how much stuff your body has, this number does not change. The child's mass on the moon or at a space station is 40 kg. The child's weight at these places is 40 kg."
"The force of gravity on you is also a number. In the SI system, we can measure this force in newtons (N). Some people have tried to measure mass in newtons or to measure force in kilograms, but that does not work well. Remember that weight can either mean mass or force. So whenever we measure weight in kilograms, we are actually measuring mass, but whenever we measure weight in newtons, we are measuring the force of gravity that pulls something."
@shanedk They our correct, but they are referring to mass as the weight, and not force. As I said, out mass remains the same. Our weight changes.
They have not applied the factor of gravity, the force. When this is applied it alters our weight depending on its force. Scroll down a bit further on that page and read about gravity.
@TCupUK By the way, you CANNOT just use the mass of the moon--you ALSO have to use your distance from the center of mass! So, you'll weigh less at the top of a mountain than you will in (say) Death Valley where it's below sea level--or, AS I FUCKING SHOWED IN THE VIDEO, at the top of the world than at the equator.
Density really doesn't have anything to do with this, since the Earth would still have a more-or-less uniform density yet your weight would change.
"For example, a 45 kg person would weigh only 7.6 kg on the Moon."
Correct:
"For example, a 45 kp person would "weigh" only 7.6 kp on the Moon." (mind the kp!)
And:
"For example, a 45 kg person would "weigh" 45 kg on the Moon."
shanedk is perdectly right!
"Weight" is the term that causes your confusuion here, just as Pawels. Look up at Wiki how weight is defined in SCIENTIFIC context! And consider how balances work! (ctd.)
@TCupUK Reply to your post beginning with "Trollol.
OF COURSE both statements cannot both be true. But that is YOUR problem, not mine! Because the first staement is yours (wrong), and the second is mine (true). These are not BOTH MY statements! You missed the quotation marks, you illiterate fool!
"For example, a 45 kp person would "weigh" only 7.6 kp on the Moon."
"a 45 kg person would "weigh" 45 kg on the Moon."
These our the contradictory statements silly, mine agrees with your first statement, however your second statement contradicts both mine and your first statement. That is where the contradiction is, not in what I said. 1 kg·m/s² ≈ 0.10197 kp relative to g.
"A kilogram-force (kgf or kgF), or kilopond (kp, from latin pondus meaning weight), is a gravitational metric unit of force"
in NO WAY leads to your following "conclusion" that (quote):
"Saying 45kg is the same as saying 45kp." Because kgF is NOT kg. NOT NEARLY. It´s like comparing apples and pears! shanedk and I told you a 100 times now, and (at least) I won´t give up -
We can raise the stake to 10,000 USD if you prefer! Let´s choose two regular phsical science professors from stately Universities to be the referees. It´s up to you to choose them! If both are d`accord then what they decide is tying! Stakes are to be deposited at a notary beforehand.
Be warned: If you won´t join the bet, I and others here will neccessarily regard you as a cheap troblemaker!
If the Moon size is about 1\60 that of the Earth, then why do we only weigh 1\6 on the Moon of what we weigh on Earth?
The mass of the Moon is less than 1/80 (0.0123) that of the Earth, and its diameter is a little more than a quarter (0.273). Gravitational acceleration is proportional to M / (R * R), so for the Moon (0.0123) / (.273 * .273) = 0.165 or about 1/6 that of the Earth.
What do I need a "Dr. Eric Christian" for that commonplace matter of course? Yes, it´s true, everyone who passed high school knows that. The difference is: I can calculate that myself, I can even derive the necessary formulae myself, just by pure THINKING, whereas you can do nothing but PASTE (Dr. Christian in this case)...
But, more important: HOW DOES THIS QUOTE SUPPORT YOUR POSITION IN ANY WAY????
Does he say in any line, that kg = kp, or that mass on moon has less kg than on earth?
@pelikan88 Because he works at Nasa stupid, and he does not think we weigh the same on the moon as the Earth. But I suppose you think that you can get some professor to argue against him. Omg I thought Christian fundamentalist where stupid, but you are in a league of your own.
kg is a measurement of mass with a 9.8N force excreted on it. The force is important because we can not actually directly measure mass. 1kg on the moon would have about 1.63N applied to it. Thus 1kg of mass would WEIGH 166.6g on the moon. Its mass would remain the same, but its weight would be less because of the weaker g applied due to the moon's gravity. It's mass would remain the same but its weight will alter. The same applies for any unit of measurement of weight. W does not = m. W=mg
@TCupUK "kg is a measurement of mass with a 9.8N force excreted on it."
No, IDIOT, it's JUST a unit of mass. 1kg is 1kg REGARDLESS of what force is excreted on it--in fact, you NEED kg to MAKE Newtons! 1N = 1 kg * (m/s^2). An object with a MASS of 1kg will WEIGH ~9.8N on Earth because 9.8N = 1 kg * 9.8 m/s^2. On the moon that mass WILL STILL BE 1kg, and will WEIGH 1.622N because the WEIGHT will be 1 kg * 1.622 m/s^2!
@TCupUK "It's mass would remain the same but its weight will alter."
Why do you keep saying this when WE'VE NEVER FUCKING SAID OTHERWISE??? We've been trying to get you to see that MASS IS MEASURED IN KILOGRAMS. As I just showed, the weight on the moon will STILL have a mass of 1kg because it's NOT the kg component that changes, it's the GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION which is measured in m/s^2, NOT kg!!!
Thanks for this video; I much appreciate ACTUAL science, facts and data over drivel. I nearly fell off my chair when I found Pawel's video; I had no idea people actually believed these things in this day and age. Ah, Dogma.
CapriciousBlackBox 1 month ago
"Mass
Mass Defined
Though length is easy enough to comprehend, mass is more involved. In his second law of motion, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) defined mass as the ratio of force to gravity. This, of course, is a statement that belongs to the realm of physics;"
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK I wonder why you're STILL coming up with sources that support US and pretending they support. YOU. Could you POSSIBLY be that stupid???
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Support you?
Stupid, it was me that corrected you.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Sorry, but NO! With every information you paste from Wiki, you support US! You freak didn´t correct anybody until now, and I´m afraid you NEVER will!
HOW ABOUT THE BET, COWARD? THIS IS THE THIRD TIME!!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
By the way - I didn´t tell you yet: I´m working on a book called "Contributions to a Phenomenology of Denial"
(orig. title: Beiträge zu einer Phänomenologie der Verleugnung). You made my day! I collected another 20 pages or so thanks to you! Other guys appearing: PawelKolasa, flatterearth, soundznice, and some others..
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Funny, pelikan has admitted he was wrong and I was right on many occasions now.
Simply fact is if you weigh 80kg on Earth you will not weigh that on the moon.
Your a nob jockey riding shandek in your donkey race.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK "Funny, pelikan has admitted he was wrong and I was right on many occasions now."
He has NOT, you LIAR! DEFINITE Rule #5 violation there. Have I given you warnings before?
If you're 80kg, then you're 80kg EVERYWHERE in the universe. DEAL with it.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Clearly ignorance works for you. I would quote you where he has admitted he was wrong, but I have already and it did not penetrate through your ignorance so I doubt re quoting it will help. I even quoted a nasa scientist contradicting your stupidity, but again your ignorance has won over.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK "I would quote you where he has admitted he was wrong, but I have already"
No, you have NOT, and he has NOT done so (except for one minor point I corrected him on).
"I even quoted a nasa scientist contradicting your stupidity"
Except he DIDN'T contradict it, he contradicted YOU and confirmed US, and you're just too stupid or delusional to see it.
shanedk 3 months ago
@TCupUK Also, second warning.
Also also, you never answered this question:
F = ma
If a is in meters per second squared, what unit is mass in?
shanedk 3 months ago
@TCupUK And if you want to pretend to use NASA as a source: gooDOTgl/gP6wU
"If the units of force are in newtons, then THE UNITS OF MASS ARE KILOGRAMS and the units of acceleration are m/s^2." (emphasis mine)
KILOGRAMS IS A MEASUREMENT OF MASS. And your mass DOES NOT CHANGE ON THE MOON. DEAL with it, LIAR.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk No pretence, google his name, expand your knowledge base.
Your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
"In everyday usage, the mass of an object given in kilograms is often referred to as its weight, which is the measure of the gravitational force—or heaviness—of an object."
Your so stupid
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK In EVERYDAY usage. In SCIENTIFIC usage, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, it's quite different.
Just like IN EVERYDAY USAGE "theory" means "guess," but not in scientific usage
JUST LIKE A FUCKING CREATIONIST.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk You do not understand the science that is the problem, that is why I quoted your source on the matter.
In the scientific sense 1kg would weigh 1/6kg on the moon. It is clearly to complexed for you to work out. W=mg. It would need 1/6 of the force to leave the moons atmosphere than it needed to leave Earth.
Now that is the fact of kg.
If you can show me that kp is not derived from Earth's gravity then your second persona's argument would hold up. But this like kg is dependent in g.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK You repeating the WRONG claim yet again does NOT make it so.
Note how you keep dishonestly switching to kp in your final statements.
1 kp = 9.80665 N. A Newton is kg * m/s^2. So kp does NOT convert directly to kg, no matter how much you might want it to.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk You can convert one to the other, I did not say they where equal units of measurement, I said they are both depend on force of g excreted on it, and are measurements of weight and not mass. Or another way to put it would be the mass of 1 litre of water = 1kg within a 9.8N g field. Alter the g field and you get this. 1l=166.6g/1.63n The mass remains constant the variable's to weigh the mass alters.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK "You can convert one to the other"
NO YOU CANNOT!!! They are TWO DIFFERENT UNITS that measure TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!
"I said they are both depend on force of g excreted on it"
YOU...ARE...WRONG!!!
The MASS of 1 liter of pure water (at 0C) is ALWAYS 1kg, REGARDLESS of what gravitational field it might be in.
"within a 9.8N g field."
This is hilarious! You NEVER measure "g" in Newtons! You measure g in meters per second squared! MORON!
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Yes you can stupid. The same way we can convert kg in to lb. You do know the meaning of convert right?
No you are wrong. Stop miss quoting the first paragraph of wikipedia, read further to where it explains it is relative to g.
And if if you think N does not measure g then there really is no hope for you, you might as well join your local church and pray that something comes and saves you.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK "Stop miss quoting the first paragraph of wikipedia, read further to where it explains it is relative to g."
YOU are the one misquoting it; we've proven that.
The bit after yours:
"Weight given in kilograms is technically the non‑SI unit of measure known as the kilogram-force. The equivalent unit of force in the avoirdupois system of measurement is the pound-force. In strict scientific contexts, forces are typically measured with the SI unit newton."
I also quoted NASA, LIAR.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk "we" That will be you and your alter ego. And you have proved nothing, get me a professor preferably of physics that agree with you. And you better get you money together so I can cash in on this stupidity of yours and your alter ego.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK Go ask ANY professor of physics, or crack open ANY physics textbook.
shanedk 3 months ago
@TCupUK Wait, does that mean you're formally accepting his bet?
shanedk 3 months ago
@TCupUK Oh, and how does the Wikipedia article start out?
"The kilogram or kilogramme (symbol: kg) is the base unit of MASS in the International System of Units and is defined as being equal to the MASS of the International Prototype Kilogram (IPK), which is almost exactly equal to the mass of one liter of water." (emphases mine)
LIAR.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk "In everyday usage, the mass of an object given in kilograms is often referred to as its weight, which is the measure of the gravitational force—or heaviness—of an object. Weight given in kilograms is technically the non‑SI unit of measure known as the kilogram-force."
That one stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK Already debunked, LIAR.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk You could not debunk your way out of a kids maze. Your so stupid. Get me that physical professor if you can not find a physics professor. I provided quotes from Nasa and you still think your right, your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK "provided quotes from Nasa and you still think your right, your so stupid. "
NO YOU DID NOT, YOU FUCKING LIAR!!! You quoted WIKIPEDIA!!! *I* quoted NASA!!!
You're a complete fucktard!
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk copy from my post @TCupUK
"Q: Weight given in kg is technically the non‑SI unit of measure known as the kg-force."
Yor interpretation of this sentence is wrong (I admit it´s ambiguous):
What is means: If someone (erroneosly) gives (speaks of) weight in kg then the real quantity "behind it" is weight in kg-force! The word technically in this context means: "to be exact".
Try to read it again this way round, and you´re there! I`m sure shanedk misunderstood that too cause this way its ok!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK
"Quote: Weight given in kilograms is technically the non‑SI unit of measure known as the kilogram-force."
Yor interpretation of this sentence is wrong (I admit it´s ambiguous):
What is means: If someone (erroneosly) gives (speaks of) weight in kg then the real quantity "behind it" is weight in kilogram-force! The word technically in this context means: "to be exact".
Try to read it again this way round, and you´re there! I`m sure shanedk misunderstood that too cause this way its ok!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 No, it sounds like I had it right: using kilograms for "weight" is just something that lay people do, but it doesn't conform to any proper usage of "kg."
shanedk 3 months ago
"The kilogram is a unit of mass, the measurement of which corresponds to the general, everyday notion of how “heavy” something is. Physically speaking, mass is an inertial property; that is, the tendency of an object to remain at constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. Or in other words, not in the scientific sense of mass." Your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK "Physically speaking, mass is an inertial property; that is, the tendency of an object to remain at constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force."
Yes, and does that tendency to be acted upon by an outside force change when it's on the moon? NO IT DOES NOT!!!
IDIOT.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Hi shandk, you´re doing a great job here! Doesn´t make me feel so all alone. TCupUK is like a hydra (which is not exactly an intelligent animal). You cut his head with a letal argument, thinking you´re done, and the SAME head jumps out again in asudden! Man, I got plain business to do - but OTOH I just can´t resist to induce an AHA-moment in this fool. Thanks for hlp even if it´s not adressed to me
"Nothing serves better to give a notion of infinity than human stupidity" Karl Kraus 1918
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK 23 hours before I pasted this from Wiki (as a CRUCIAL reply to the SAME Wiki-quote you´re bothering shanedk again with here :
""When an object’s weight (its gravitational force) is expressed in kilograms, the unit of measure is NOT A TRUE kilogram; it is the kilogram-force (kgf or kg-f), also known as the kilopond (kp), which is a non-SI unit of force". End Wiki
Your quotation is (deliberateliy?) torn out of context!" End Quote.
All that´s left was to accuse Wiki being wrong. DO YOU?
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Your so stupid.
kg in everyday use, as in I "WEIGH" 80kg.
You do not weigh the same one the moon. Note the "weigh"
Your mass does not alter. But we are not talking about mass when we say "weigh". We are referring to the gravitation force.
If your mass is 80kg on Earth, your mass will be the same on the moon. But your "weight" will not be.
Mass = how much matter is contained.
Weight= how much force is excreted on mass.
Meh I said this so many times now, but your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK In the equation F = ma, what unit is m expressed in?
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK And you STILL haven't figured out the proper contraction, have you?
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
Comment removed
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Oh, you think you will get away by quietly turning over to our side by simply avoiding all the fallacies you posted, hoping we´d not notice and already had forgotten about them?? No way!
It took you WEEKS to peform the latest cutback ( "in everday use") and now you´re acting as this was always clear to you! We recall your efforts to cut the everyday use passage out of every wiki quote you posted.
How about the bet? Or may I say in advance: You`r a FUCKING LIAR and a really BAD LOSER?
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK Another question: why is it called the "MKS System"?
shanedk 3 months ago
@TCupUK No answer? Again?
shanedk 3 months ago
@TCupUK "Funny, pelikan has admitted he was wrong and I was right on many occasions now."
Sorry but NO! Except of my mistake ( I corrected that adressed to shanedk + you IMMEDIATELY) due to fatigue (where I(!) corrected your + into a * and thus - not being able to see the wood because of all the trees (german saying) - prolonged YOUR mistake (g-force instead of a) I didn`t make any mistake.
I even pardoned YOUR mistake as a SLIP (look it up!).
You were right MANY times - but only quoting Wiki!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 You are the fecking mistake you fool. Damn I did not think it was possible to be this stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
It`s obvious that a wager does only make sense on the basis of a well defined subject.
So what about the text of our wager I proposed ?
Does it represent our differences adaequately?
Might even be that you suddenly agree with the three statements herein (answering all 3 with YES).
But be shure: by doing so all you posted before (except Wiki-quotes) will thus be proved WRONG!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK
"Simply fact is if you weigh 80kg on Earth you will not weigh that on the moon."
I makes no sense to discuss that anymore, because that sentence strictly spoken doesn´t literally make ANY SENSE (look up "logical positivism" in Wiki). Because it can´t neither be proved nor disproved - because don´t weigh in kg in scientific terms...
As I told you xtimes before: Reconsider your concept of weight!
Im not in the mood to go thru all that again in vain, so let´s focus on our wager!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Exactly: saying "Your weight in kilograms" is like saying "Your height in liters."
shanedk 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Get your professor and get him to post here. I will validate his credentials and accept it as fact if he agree with you. You do this and I will concede. I will wage what ever you like, as I am that confident that you will not even be able to find one.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Fine! In my post I wanted YOU to choose the TWO professors (regular professors (physicists) at a stately Europ. Univ.), but if forgot that you have text comprehension problems even if the advantage is on your side.
To nail it down, im working on a standardized questionnaire (maybe 5-10 questions) where only Y and N are allowed as answers - it`s the only way to prevent inaccuracies. Of course you may see and dicuss (o my!) it before. If not ALL qu. are answered with yes, you win!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 You choose a physical, sorry physicist to argue your case. Give me his name, I will check his credentials and the validate what he says.
Until then you are so stupid. And after then you will realise how stupid you are when you can not get one to do it.
Your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK By the way: This professors will not "post here" - you will receive a registered and official letter stamped by the University/professor which will be granted as genuine by a notary beforehand.
Fees and the like will be split in half and are to be paid in advance. No second exit here, man!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Your so fecking stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
Comment removed
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Quote: "Though length is easy enough to comprehend, mass is more involved."
This is WRONG. Mass is a basic dimension in SI, just as length is.
Quote: "In his second law of motion, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) defined mass as the ratio of force to gravity."
This is WRONG. He defined: F = ma. Yes, baby, I know it´s just an algebraic transformation and both of them are MATHEMATICALLY correct. But the point is: Mass is BASIC, not a function of anything, thus not "more involved". W is!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Your so stupid!
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK /watch?v=IBdSl7yeIiw
shanedk 3 months ago
@pelikan88
Wrong? as though you can comprehned when something is wrong.
That is a quote from a chemistry site, but of course you with your imaginary PhD knows better.
I thought shandek was ignorant of the facts, but you are on a whole new level.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Original text (just to put and end to it):
Lex II: Mutationem motus proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae, et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.
Transl.18th century: Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impress'd; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impress'd.
Does he talk about mass explicitly here? No. He talks about force (vi motrici)! Latin vi is 3.case of the noun vis, which means force!
pelikan88 3 months ago
der
TheCraich 3 months ago
This troll should be amusing, I assume it is a close friend of yours Shanedk.
Replies pending :P
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
And so accordingly you are Pawels buddy, or what?
pelikan88 3 months ago
HAHAHAHA! Shane tastes his own bitter medicine; being ridiculed and insulted!
lol.
PawelKolasa 4 months ago
1:03 Mass is a measure of matter. Weight is a measure of force.
We weigh less on the moon in KG, or (N) but our mass remains the same.
100 kg measure in (N) on earth would = 980 newtons. The conversion is 9,8 to convert KG in to (N). Fact! fact! fact!
TCupUK 4 months ago
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 "Retard", I can see your level of education clearly.
Let me politely correct your error.
"One kilogram of mass in a 9.80665 m/s2 GRAVITATIONAL FIELD (standard gravity, a conventional value approximating the average magnitude of gravity on Earth).[1] Therefore one kilogram-force is by definition equal to 9.80665 N.[2][3] Similarly, a gram-force is 9.80665 mN, and a milligram-force is 9.80665 µN."
Wikipedia.
Alter the gravitational filed and it alters the weight of the object eg KG.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Where is my "error?" This is all perfectly true, and I didn´t say anything contradictory! You are quite good in copy and paste, bay the way!
But your conclusion is completely wrong!! Altering the grav. filed DOES NOT alter kg, but it DOES alter weight!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK So you think kgf = kg???
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk You elegantly brought TCupUK´s issue to the point! The absurdity of this equation is screaming out!
I´m curious of his answer!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@shanedk Think, I know. As does any reputable site
"Weight given in kilograms is technically the non‑SI unit of measure known as the kilogram-force."
Wikipedia thinks so also.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK Answer this then:
F = ma
If a is in meters per second squared, what unit is mass in?
shanedk 3 months ago
@TCupUK You want wiki? here it comes:
"When an object’s weight (its gravitational force) is expressed in kilograms, the unit of measure is NOT A TRUE kilogram; it is the kilogram-force (kgf or kg-f), also known as the kilopond (kp), which is a non-SI unit of force".
Your quotation is (deliberateliy?) torn out of context!
"Why don´t you quote the sentence before ? : IN EVERYDAY USAGE, the mass of an object given in kilograms is often referred to as its weight... " This TECHNICALLY only...
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK
By the way:
FOR SEVEN TIMES NOW now during the last year I challenged Pawel to join a 5000 USD bet that I can prove he´s wrong!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The lousy coward hasn´t answered yet - not a single word !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about you? I`m happy to see that you are so sure of your stuff! Want to join a 5000 USD bet?
Should be no problem for you to win!?
THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME, LOUDMOUTH....
pelikan88 3 months ago
Comment removed
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Your quote from Wiki: "One kilogram of mass in a 9.80665 m/s2 GRAVITATIONAL FIELD (standard gravity, a conventional value approximating the average magnitude of gravity on Earth).[1] Therefore one kilogram-force is by definition equal to 9.80665 N.[2][3] Similarly, a gram-force is 9.80665 mN, and a milligram-force is 9.80665 µN."
Very nicely pasted! But what you are missing is that Wiki correctly mentiones kilogram-FORCE and NOT kilogram, which are quite different beasts! Idiot!!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 You are so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Quote: "The conversion is 9,8 to convert KG in to (N). Fact! fact! fact!"
1.) The term conversion is wrong. Mass and weight are two different physical "DIMENSIONS" (quantities)! You can´t "convert" one dimension into another! Look up SI in Wiki. By the way, and to be exact, weight isnt even a dimension, it´s derived from the dimensions MASS, TIME, and LENGHT.
2.) The term conversion in physics is defined as comparing two UNITS of the SAME dim. via a corrective constant. ctd.
pelikan88 3 months ago
Just to prevent misunderstandings in advance:
From wiki "standard gravity":
Although the symbol g is sometimes incorrectly used for standard gravity, g (without a suffix) strictly means the local acceleration due to local gravity and centrifugal acceleration, which VARIES depending on one's position on Earth.
g VARIES, thus is NOT a constant, so no conversion is possible. g0 ("g zero") IS a (quasi)constant, but only by ACCORDANCE as the AVERAGE/STANDARD of gravity on earth. ctd
pelikan88 3 months ago
Auf dieses Video antworten...
g differs on earth. in Oslo it´s about 9.9 whereas in Singapur it´s about 9.7. Therefore things DO weigh (in N) less in Singapur than in Oslo in REALITY. The fact that (precise)scales show the same result no matter in Sing. or Oslo is because they ARE CALIBRATED in accout of local g. If you use THE SAME scale here and there, it will show DIFFERENT results!!! This of course only applies to spring scale type scales and not counterbalanced scales measuring kg.
pelikan88 3 months ago
Auf dieses Video antworten... By the way:
FOR SEVEN TIMES NOW now during the last year I challenged Pawel to join a 5000 USD bet that I can prove he´s wrong!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The lousy coward hasn´t answered yet - not a single word !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How about you? I`m happy to see that you are so sure of your stuff! Want to join a 5000 USD bet?
Should be no problem for you to win!?
THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME, LOUDMOUTH....
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 meh, do you even comprehend what you write?
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Your post: "meh, do you even comprehend what you write?"
Looks like projection in the Freudian sense to me! Everytime you post something right, it´s not posted, it´s PASTED. But then you don´t draw even nearly correct conclusions out of that, no! Just the opposite: all that follows is plain BULLSHIT! So I doubt your brain is capable of autonomous thinking, and DEEP IN YOUR HEART you know that and project this disability into others, trying to get rid of it!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 It is pasted because it is legitimate sources confirming what I said. You really can not be this stupid, but a good troll you are.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Nothing to say against pasting per se! But everything you "derive" from the pasted text is 100% BULLSHIT! This is quite sad, woulndn´t you agree? My advice: stay away from any PISA-test concerning text comprehension!
pelikan88 3 months ago
80 kg on Earth, 80kg on the moon etc etc is completely false. The strength of the gravity on the planet/rock you are on will dictate your weight. Your mass will remain the same, but your weight will vary.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK GRAMS...MEASURES...MASS...NOT...WEIGHT!!! How many times do I have to say it? WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN!!!
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk It does not matter how many time you say it, you will still be wrong.
Weight and mass are not the same things.
Your mass will remain the same wherever you are in the universe, your weight will vary depending of the gravitational force exerted by the planetary body you are on. This is why you would weigh more on Jupiter.
Please refrain from using capitals, ridicule is not a basis of an argument..
FYI, I do not think the Earth is static, I am just correcting your error.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK So I say "GRAMS...MEASURES...MASS...NOT...WEIGHT!!! " And you come back with:
"Weight and mass are not the same things"
Okay, YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR!!! YOU were shown to be wrong and now you're trying to claim I said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I did!!!
"Your mass will remain the same wherever you are in the universe" Yes, and KILOGRAMS MEASURE MASS!!! Therefore, "80 kg on Earth, 80kg on the moon" IS FUCKING CORRECT!!!
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk My opening statement was that we do not weigh the same on the moon as we do here. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to access this information. Google can provide you with all the facts you need. But I doubt your ignorance will pay any attention.
I have shown you where you are wrong, and your response is to have a sissy fit about it. So be it!
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK No, your opening statement was "80 kg on Earth, 80kg on the moon etc etc is completely false." THAT statement is completely false!
"I have shown you where you are wrong,"
How FUCKING DELUDED do you have to be to think that??? I even referenced you to the NIST saying EXACTLY what I did! And you have provided NOTHING WHATSOEVER to back it up! It is the WEIGHT--measured in NEWTONS--that changes, NOT the MASS measured in KILOGRAMS!
No amount of your pathetic insults will change that.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk Hi, I think I got the text of my wager! What do you think?
1.) If you weigh 50 kp on earth, you weigh substantially less on moon. (about 1/6, but the exact amount is not crucial.)
2.) If your mass is 50 kg on earth, your mass is 50 kg on the moon also. (NOT taking relativistic effects into accout!)
3.) Examples above show clearly, that weight (kp, N) can not be converted into mass (kg)
Shorter than I thought it had to be! Anything missing or ambiguous?
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Sounds right to me.
Unless you also want to add one to the fact that the gravitational component is acceleration (m/s^2) and separate from the mass (kg) component in determining weight.
shanedk 3 months ago
@pelikan88 I might also reword #3:
"3.) Examples above show clearly, that weight (kp, N) can not be directly converted into mass (kg); the only correlation would be due to a constant gravitational acceleration (g)"
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Your so stupid
TCupUK 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK "Please refrain from using capitals, ridicule is not a basis of an argument.."
Better than being a FUCKING LIAR.
"I am just correcting your error."
Except, as I CLEARLY showed, I MADE NO ERROR. I was VERY clear in the video, as well as all the other times I had to deal with self-superior pseudo-intellectuals like you who say INCREDIBLY wrong things and then LIE when they're called on it!
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk But you are the liar, that is why I took the time to correct you.
You made one of the stupidest errors I have seen for a long time. Even my 9 year old son can grasp this, when you clearly can not.
You should look in to some relaxation techniques, you clearly are suffering a case of troll hysteria.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK Blatant ad hominem, NOTHING to back up your insane claim, NO response WHATSOEVER to the evidence I gave. Typical.
shanedk 4 months ago
@fgv Funny you should bring up sanity have you ever been tested?
If not I would recommend you do.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK Do you have ANYTHING to back up what you say? Anything AT ALL?
And no response to the fact that you BLATANTLY LIED about what I said in the video and in these comments?
shanedk 4 months ago
@TCupUK
Quote:"Weight and mass are not the same things." Correct.
Quote: "This is why you would weigh more on Jupiter."
If you mean by "weight" a quantity measured in N, you are right.
But if you mean by "weight" a quantity measured in kg, you are WRONG! Your kgs will be the SAME on Jupiter!
As shanedk says: grams measure mass not weight! This is middle school stuff! Were the hell did you get your BSc from??
Think over your fuzzy concept of weight, before you make yourself a clown here!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 "Were the hell did you get your BSc from??"
In his case, I think it stands for Bronze Swimming Certificate.
shanedk 3 months ago 2
@shanedk He's swimming in bronze? Sounds like it'd hurt if it was hot enough that one could theoretically swim in it.
Virgil0211 3 months ago
@shanedk The Open University.
I would ask you the same, but you clearly went to the same school as Shanedk.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK This OPEN University should better be closed ;-)
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 So what qualifications have you got, did you even pass high school?
TCupUK 3 months ago
Comment removed
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK If you really think you would impress anyone with your lousy BSc you almost force me to show you mine!
I was promoted Ph.D. in 1989 at the University of Vienna, Austria. Mostly I´ve been working on Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. I was dealing with subjects like the Kopenhagen Interpretation of Quantum mechanics, for example.
What we are talking here is merely fast food - but if one hasn´t got teeth in his brain even fast food apparently takes a long time to swallow...
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Wow, I am still bothering with this troll.
I correcting your error in my last reply explaining that weight as in Kg is effected by g excreted on it. If g is greater than a KG will weigh more. To get them to weigh as one Kg for the same amount of mass would require recalculating the scales to account for the increase in g force excreted on your mass.
You do understand that m creates g that creates W right?
Well you should do now. :pftt this is like teaching school kids.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Q: "If g is greater than a KG will weigh more". Yes it will weigh more, but more kp, not kg!!!! kg DOES NOT measure weight!
Scales (weighing kp) ARE being recalculated depending on local g all over the world (which proves Pawel wrong by the way) in a way that the READOUT of kg matches RREADOUT of kp, because the interest is to determine mass not weight (which is incorrectly used in common language). What would be the need of this procedure if kg was kp????
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 You asked and answered a question and still got it wrong according to you. If g is greater than a kg will weigh more. You say yes and then argue why it does not. 1 kg·m/s² ≈ 0.10197 kp
Weight is at best an estimate.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
"If g is greater than a kg will weigh more." Let me translate (just to be sure): The greater g (or any acceleration) is, the more one kg does weigh. If that is what you mean: yes, this is true! A mass BEING (NOT "wheighing"!) 1 kg can weigh 0.5 kp or 2 kp or whatever, depending on a. But this is the best proof that kp is NOT kg.
Quote: "Weight is at best an estimate." First of all: who cares? Does this play one role in our discussion?
Second: It´s wrong! g isnt always g0, that´s all!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Let me specify my last post in precaution of your marginal polemic replies: Of course force isn´t always a vector (it´s a quaternion), and of course you can moan about one or the other expression/definition I missed to state comprehensively or failsafe, valid in every context - but this cannot touch the core of the message in OUR context: the scale example...
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Stupid, the greater the mass the grater the gravitational force.
TCupUK 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TCupUK
"Stupid, the greater the mass the grater the gravitational force".
Noone EVER doubted that...
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Let´s try it another way: Acceleration always has a DIRECTION, (loosely spoken) force is always a VECTOR, so weight is a vector too, whereas mass has NO vector (but apparently is generating a FIELD which is radial and omnidirectional thus being a scalar). If you put 1 kg @g0 on a spring scale and let it hang down, it weighs 1 kp. If you (try to) let it hang UP (reversing the scale), it will weigh MINUS 1 kp (contracting the spring). Now: is that a difference or what?
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Your so stupid!
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK /watch?v=IBdSl7yeIiw
shanedk 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Is that really your answer? I`m impressed!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK
We are moving in a hamster wheel (where the hamster is you) which I´m tired of. All has been said. In vain.
It´s perfectly clear to me now that
a.) either you haven´t got the brains to comprehend anything above a certain (pretty low) level.
b.) or you simply don´t WANT to know (creationist denial syndrome)
c.) or you´re a troll.
So let the professors decide! I´m waiting for your comments on my proposals concerning the procedere of our wager! I will not answer any other crap anymore.
pelikan88 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pelikan88 Your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK I just don´t believe it!!! Is there any logic left in your brain?
You wrote: "Your mass will remain the same wherever you are in the universe, your weight will vary depending of the gravitational force exerted by the planetary body you are on. This is why you would weigh more on Jupiter."
Yes, yes, yes again! You DO WEIGH (=N) more on Jup., but "your mass remains the same" (YOUR own words!!). Since mass is kg, kg will stay the same! Congrats, YOU PROVED YOURSELF WRONG!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@TCupUK From the NIST Guide to the SI: gooDOTgl/C2TZj
"In science and technology, the weight of a body in a particular reference frame is defined as the force that gives the body an acceleration equal to the local acceleration of free fall in that reference frame. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight defined in this way is the newton (N)."
(cont'd)
shanedk 4 months ago
"Example: The local force of gravity on a copper sphere of mass 10 kg located on the surface of the Earth, which is its weight at that location, is approximately 98 N."
"In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb “to weigh” means “to determine the mass of” or “to have a mass of.”"
Let's PLEASE put this to rest now!
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk Yes, we measure things in newtons. You know a newton is in reference to gravitational force right?
Probably not after reading your other replies.
Newton is the SI basic unit of force 1 N = 1 kg · m / s2
Force of weight FG = m · g; mass = m and gravity acceleration g = 9.80665 m/s2
The moon's mass is (7.35 x 10 22 kg), about 1/81 of the Earth's mass.
The moon's density is 3340 kg/m 3. This is about 3/5 the density of the Earth.
Cont
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK "Yes, we measure things in newtons. You know a newton is in reference to gravitational force right?"
No, Newtons when used to measure weight are a PRODUCT of gravitational force and the mass.
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk The moon's gravitational force is only 17% of the Earth's gravity. For example, a 100 pound (45 kg) person would weigh only 17 pounds (7.6 kg) on the Moon.
So like I said originally, you would not weigh the same on the moon as you do Earth.
Shocking how you are defending an indefensible point.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK "So like I said originally, you would not weigh the same on the moon as you do Earth."
I NEVER SAID YOU DID, YOU PATHETIC LIAR!!!
"a 100 pound (45 kg) person would weigh only 17 pounds (7.6 kg) on the Moon."
WRONG!!! PATHETICALLY wrong! The CORRECT statement is: a 100 pound (45 kg) person would weigh only 17 pounds (45 kg) on the Moon. Because KILOGRAMS MEASURE WEIGHT NOT MASS!!!
Just a pathetic attempt to discredit me. You're not one of those League of Reason assholes, are you?
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk You clearly do not have the mental capacity to comprehend. The mass of your brain appears insufficient.
I am a computer scientist BSc HoN.
It is because you are wrong that I even bothered to comment.
it really does not bother me if you wish to remain ignorant of the facts, it is more for other people who listen to your shit and think you may know what you are talking about, when I can assure you and them that you do not.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK What about the NIST? Are they wrong too?
LOL@ the argument from self-authority...
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk No, they are not wrong you have misinterpreted it.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK You haven't done ONE SINGLE THING to show how!
They match what I said PERFECTLY.
shanedk 4 months ago
@TCupUK What about EdInformatics, are they wrong, too? gooDOTgl/AnoFj
"Now suppose that you go to the moon or to a space station, but you do not eat too much or start a diet. Then the number for how much stuff your body has, this number does not change. The child's mass on the moon or at a space station is 40 kg. The child's weight at these places is 40 kg."
(cont'd)
shanedk 4 months ago
"The force of gravity on you is also a number. In the SI system, we can measure this force in newtons (N). Some people have tried to measure mass in newtons or to measure force in kilograms, but that does not work well. Remember that weight can either mean mass or force. So whenever we measure weight in kilograms, we are actually measuring mass, but whenever we measure weight in newtons, we are measuring the force of gravity that pulls something."
shanedk 4 months ago
@shanedk They our correct, but they are referring to mass as the weight, and not force. As I said, out mass remains the same. Our weight changes.
They have not applied the factor of gravity, the force. When this is applied it alters our weight depending on its force. Scroll down a bit further on that page and read about gravity.
TCupUK 4 months ago
@TCupUK "They our correct, but they are referring to mass as the weight, and not force."
Do you even LISTEN to yourself?
"As I said, out mass remains the same. Our weight changes."
But that was MY point, which is what you DENIED IN YOUR VERY FIRST POST!
"They have not applied the factor of gravity, the force."
Because THERE IS NO FORCE COMPONENT TO THE KILOGRAM!!! It's the NEWTON that does that!!!
shanedk 4 months ago
@TCupUK Again, from the site: "So whenever we measure weight in kilograms, WE ARE ACTUALLY MEASURING MASS"
Do you have reading comprehension problems? Or are you just THAT much of a LIAR?
shanedk 4 months ago
@TCupUK By the way, you CANNOT just use the mass of the moon--you ALSO have to use your distance from the center of mass! So, you'll weigh less at the top of a mountain than you will in (say) Death Valley where it's below sea level--or, AS I FUCKING SHOWED IN THE VIDEO, at the top of the world than at the equator.
Density really doesn't have anything to do with this, since the Earth would still have a more-or-less uniform density yet your weight would change.
shanedk 4 months ago
@TCupUK So BSc HoNs are that stupid these days?
You erroneously wrote:
"For example, a 45 kg person would weigh only 7.6 kg on the Moon."
Correct:
"For example, a 45 kp person would "weigh" only 7.6 kp on the Moon." (mind the kp!)
And:
"For example, a 45 kg person would "weigh" 45 kg on the Moon."
shanedk is perdectly right!
"Weight" is the term that causes your confusuion here, just as Pawels. Look up at Wiki how weight is defined in SCIENTIFIC context! And consider how balances work! (ctd.)
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Trollolol.
"A kilogram-force (kgf or kgF), or kilopond (kp, from latin pondus meaning weight), is a gravitational metric unit of force" Wikipedia
Saying 45kg is the same as saying 45kp.
Therefore it is totally illogical to say both statements are correct.
"For example, a 45 kg person would weigh only 7.6 kg on the Moon.
Correct:
For example, a 45 kg person would "weigh" 45 kg on the Moon.
shanedk is perdectly right!"
These two contradictory statements can not both be right. cont
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK Reply to your post beginning with "Trollol.
OF COURSE both statements cannot both be true. But that is YOUR problem, not mine! Because the first staement is yours (wrong), and the second is mine (true). These are not BOTH MY statements! You missed the quotation marks, you illiterate fool!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 I will quote you:
"For example, a 45 kp person would "weigh" only 7.6 kp on the Moon."
"a 45 kg person would "weigh" 45 kg on the Moon."
These our the contradictory statements silly, mine agrees with your first statement, however your second statement contradicts both mine and your first statement. That is where the contradiction is, not in what I said. 1 kg·m/s² ≈ 0.10197 kp relative to g.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK Whenever you quote wiki, you are right.
But the wiki statement:
"A kilogram-force (kgf or kgF), or kilopond (kp, from latin pondus meaning weight), is a gravitational metric unit of force"
in NO WAY leads to your following "conclusion" that (quote):
"Saying 45kg is the same as saying 45kp." Because kgF is NOT kg. NOT NEARLY. It´s like comparing apples and pears! shanedk and I told you a 100 times now, and (at least) I won´t give up -
more of an experiment: can ignorance be defeated?
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Your so stupid!
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK /watch?v=IBdSl7yeIiw
shanedk 3 months ago
@TCupUK
Ok, then let´s get into my proposed bet!
If I´m so stupid, you can only win!
We can raise the stake to 10,000 USD if you prefer! Let´s choose two regular phsical science professors from stately Universities to be the referees. It´s up to you to choose them! If both are d`accord then what they decide is tying! Stakes are to be deposited at a notary beforehand.
Be warned: If you won´t join the bet, I and others here will neccessarily regard you as a cheap troblemaker!
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Your so stupid.
"Your Weight on the Moon
If the Moon size is about 1\60 that of the Earth, then why do we only weigh 1\6 on the Moon of what we weigh on Earth?
The mass of the Moon is less than 1/80 (0.0123) that of the Earth, and its diameter is a little more than a quarter (0.273). Gravitational acceleration is proportional to M / (R * R), so for the Moon (0.0123) / (.273 * .273) = 0.165 or about 1/6 that of the Earth.
Dr. Eric Christian
(May 2000)"
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK
What do I need a "Dr. Eric Christian" for that commonplace matter of course? Yes, it´s true, everyone who passed high school knows that. The difference is: I can calculate that myself, I can even derive the necessary formulae myself, just by pure THINKING, whereas you can do nothing but PASTE (Dr. Christian in this case)...
But, more important: HOW DOES THIS QUOTE SUPPORT YOUR POSITION IN ANY WAY????
Does he say in any line, that kg = kp, or that mass on moon has less kg than on earth?
pelikan88 3 months ago
@pelikan88 Because he works at Nasa stupid, and he does not think we weigh the same on the moon as the Earth. But I suppose you think that you can get some professor to argue against him. Omg I thought Christian fundamentalist where stupid, but you are in a league of your own.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK "and he does not think we weigh the same on the moon as the Earth."
No one here has said we do, LIAR. We say that your MASS is the same, and kilogram IS A MEASUREMENT OF MASS.
You're a fucking liar, all there is to it. YOU are the one behaving like deluded creationists.
shanedk 3 months ago
@pelikan88 So your argument is that kp is not effected by gravity?
Google stupid.
Mass = Amount of matter contained.
Weight = Gravitational force excreted.
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK No, LIAR, he clearly said that kp IS affected by gravity but that kg is not!
YOU are the one claiming that kg = kgf and kp. THAT IS WRONG!!!
YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 3 months ago
@shanedk Your so stupid.
They are both effected by gravity because they are measurements of weight (W=mg) not measurements of mass.
Do you admit that you will not weigh 80kg on the moon if you weigh 80kg on Earth?
Do you admit that a kg is a measurement of force excreted on the mass of of an object?
Do you admit that kp and kg are units to measure weight and not mass?
Are you really this stupid?
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK "They are both effected by gravity because they are measurements of weight (W=mg) not measurements of mass."
Both kgf and kp are measurements of weight. Kilograms ARE NOT--kilograms MEASURE MASS.
"Do you admit that a kg is a measurement of force excreted on the mass of of an object?"
NO!!! The kg IS the mass of the object!
"Do you admit that kp and kg are units to measure weight and not mass?"
NO, ONLY kp (kgf).
"Are you really this stupid?"
You clearly are.
shanedk 3 months ago
kg is a measurement of mass with a 9.8N force excreted on it. The force is important because we can not actually directly measure mass. 1kg on the moon would have about 1.63N applied to it. Thus 1kg of mass would WEIGH 166.6g on the moon. Its mass would remain the same, but its weight would be less because of the weaker g applied due to the moon's gravity. It's mass would remain the same but its weight will alter. The same applies for any unit of measurement of weight. W does not = m. W=mg
TCupUK 3 months ago
@TCupUK "kg is a measurement of mass with a 9.8N force excreted on it."
No, IDIOT, it's JUST a unit of mass. 1kg is 1kg REGARDLESS of what force is excreted on it--in fact, you NEED kg to MAKE Newtons! 1N = 1 kg * (m/s^2). An object with a MASS of 1kg will WEIGH ~9.8N on Earth because 9.8N = 1 kg * 9.8 m/s^2. On the moon that mass WILL STILL BE 1kg, and will WEIGH 1.622N because the WEIGHT will be 1 kg * 1.622 m/s^2!
shanedk 3 months ago
@TCupUK "It's mass would remain the same but its weight will alter."
Why do you keep saying this when WE'VE NEVER FUCKING SAID OTHERWISE??? We've been trying to get you to see that MASS IS MEASURED IN KILOGRAMS. As I just showed, the weight on the moon will STILL have a mass of 1kg because it's NOT the kg component that changes, it's the GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION which is measured in m/s^2, NOT kg!!!
IDIOT.
shanedk 3 months ago
@TCupUK "Mass = Amount of matter contained."
And is MEASURED IN KILOGRAMS and DOES NOT CHANGE if you're on the moon or in space. End of.
shanedk 3 months ago
@pelikan88 I would rather a "PHYSICS" professor but a physical one will do.
Your so stupid.
TCupUK 3 months ago