Tony Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 The "plane taking off from the conveyor belt" thread? That one is easy though if you understand basic physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 That one is easy though if you understand basic physics. I know, but getting there is a long drawn out painful experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 The "plane taking off from the conveyor belt" thread? That found its way onto the one that I did a few years ago. clicky ... however, that ended up from 'jumping on trains' to KnightRider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 that's density not weight It still explains why a given volume of water is heavier than the same volume of hydrogen + oxygen gas, so not sure what your point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123456A Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 water is heavy so that the rain drops fall down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Now then... Firstly, that statement (in bold) is perfectly correct but isn't what you said. You gave values for weight with kg and g as the unit, rendering it incorrect. Giving weights in kilograms is only incorrect if you are a professional scientist. To the rest of the the world, kilograms are units of weight. Indeed, the original kilogram was defined as the weight of a given lump of metal at a given temperature. I believe the lump of metal in question is still kept in a museum in Sevres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Giving weights in kilograms is only incorrect if you are a professional scientist. To the rest of the the world, kilograms are units of weight. Indeed, the original kilogram was defined as the weight of a given lump of metal at a given temperature. I believe the lump of metal in question is still kept in a museum in Sevres. Giving weights in kilogrammes is only correct if you are happy to be wrong about it. Here you go, the IPK in all of its glory. The S.I. unit of mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Giving weights in kilogrammes is only correct if you are happy to be wrong about it. Here you go, the IPK in all of its glory. The S.I. unit of mass. The general public do not use the SI system. They're happy with the original metric system of metre lengths, second times, and kilogram weights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 The general public do not use the SI system. They're happy with the original metric system of metre lengths, second times, and kilogram weights. A lot of the general public are distinctly unhappy with the metric system, full stop. That is the reason why we still have miles, pounds, ounces and pints. So they are not exactly the ideal reference point. The original metric system used metric time, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 A lot of the general public are distinctly unhappy with the metric system, full stop. 360 million out of a population of ... about eight thousand million and counting ... is not "a lot." It's a fairly tiny fraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.