Heaviest?

[J'Pol]

Interesting concept, posting your drafts now.

See which looks better on the page before finally deciding.

Then edit out the one you don´t like.

[mutterings]

Originally posted by JPaul@22 July 2003 - 20:43
Actually pound is a unit of mass.

Weight is a measurement of force, the force of gravity being directly proportionite to the mass of the object.

A pound of matter has the same mass in space than on earth however there is no force acting on it (at least gravitiational). When it is on earth it has weight only because of the gravity acting upon it.

So really the question would be which is the more massive.

I knew there was a reason i never try to be too clever on this board.jpaul was that reason

[Riddler]

Originally posted by JPaul@22 July 2003 - 13:52
Interesting concept, posting your drafts now.

See which looks better on the page before finally deciding.

Then edit out the one you don´t like.

Can't get away with ANYTHING around here !!!

[mutterings]

Originally posted by Riddler@22 July 2003 - 20:35
Enter here and take your licks !

Hahah so you think that you can take towwwwwww what was that for???!!!!

[Riddler]

[Loomis]

Oh My!! I believe that for the FIRST time ever, JPaul might be mistaken!!

A pound is NOT a unit of mass, but a measurement specific to this planet!
The kilogram (SI) and the slug are the units of mass most commonly used by the scientific community.

See here:
http://members.aol.com/luthben/unit.html

and here:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Slug.html

or here (for more info):
http://www.google.ca/search?q=slug+pound&i...F-8&hl=en&meta=

To clarify, I DO NOT want to put myself above JPaul; he would have me cowering in a dark hole with but a glare and a few well-thought-out (sp?) and witty comments. His intellectual prowess is above that of almost all others on this forum.

I just felt that should provide the riddlees with the facts.

Thank.

- Loomy

Edit: To be fair, I HAD misread JPaul's post. He is not, in fact, mistaken (Damn! I thought I had him), but he simply worded his explanation differently than I would've...
Apologies to you and all others

[J'Pol]

There are specific units used for scientific formulae, without which they (the formulae) do not work.

For example, in this calculation

f=ma

force equals mass times acceleration.

This only works if the units are Newtons = Kilogrammes x Metres/Second/Second.

Again using this example the weight is the force - and can be calculated as mass times the acceleration due to gravity (approximately 9.81 metres/sec/sec)

So I accept that the pound is not one of the standard units, however it is a measurement (if not unit) of mass, as opposed to weight.

Bottom line - your point is well made. It does you credit.

However would've really isn't an acceptable diminution for would have. Frankly it has no elegance.

[Loomis]

I take your constructive criticism well, JPaul! And I thank you for the well-mannered (as usual) reply

Although I would like to point out that, despite it's lack of elegance, I tend to use "wouldn't've" frequently in chat rooms, Instant messaging and The Forum (never in the creation of actual litterature, I DO have that much sense)

I think they're fun,...then again, sometimes fun takes away from elegance....oh well!

Edit: typos

[tite-wad]

Originally posted by JPaul@22 July 2003 - 18:33
However would've really isn't an acceptable diminution for would have. Frankly it has no elegance.

Inelegant perhaps, but it beats "would of" which I hear/see far too frequently.

[J'Pol]

Those who know me will realise that the elegance of the message is more important than the content.

There is an axiom which states. Write for the reader. Fuck that, I'm doing the hard bit.