Heaviest?

This should be easy for some of you. You can only have one shot at he answer and explain your answer.

What is the heaviest?

A pound of feathers or a pound of gold?

theyre the same, they both weigh a pound

No matter what the material is, both have already been given their weights, so piece of piss

They are the same weight, however I would rather be hit on the head by a pound of feathers?

A pound is a pound is a pound is a pound......don't matter WHAT yer weighin' !
http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Big%20Thumb%20Up.gif

blimey riddlers worst ones have been better than this :lol: :lol: .....gold!!!??? :blink:

Me first, what do i win?

pound of feathers :P

please explain the answer to the rest mutterings :(

Oh well I suppose it is getting late :(

A pound of feathers is the heaviest(16 ounces, avoirdupois) :huh:

A pound of gold is (14 ounces,troy) :unsure:

did i win :blink: did i,did i,I am the only one that guessed, so i should win something :angry: Oh i cant have the feathers cos i am allergic to them >_< :w00t:

:o Is it permitted to post riddles outside the Gauntlet???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tite-wad@22 July 2003 - 13:22
:o Is it permitted to post riddles outside the Gauntlet???

---

Hmmmmm......let me check the reg&#39;s................

Aha&#33; " Riddles outside the Gauntlet will be severely dealt with. The punishment being the violator&#39;s choice of either;
http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Smack%20Bottom.gif

or;
http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Kick.gif

:P

http://members.roadfly.com/tite-wad/laugh.gif

sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me :P mutterings gaunlet of not so good riddles will be open soon ..where do i go for punishment? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mutterings@22 July 2003 - 15:32
where do i go for punishment? ;)

---

Sharman&#39;s KMD forum. :angry:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mutterings@22 July 2003 - 13:32
sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me :P mutterings gaunlet of not so good riddles will be open soon ..where do i go for punishment? ;)

---

Enter here and take your licks &#33;http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Put%20em%20up.gif

:lol:

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.

Oh and it wouldn´t even be heaviest, it would be heavier, as there are only 2.

:lol:

TYVM professor &#33; Now where did Gilligan & the Skipper run off to ? I have to try that theory out with some coconuts and heads &#33; :D

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.

Quote:

---

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 :lol:

Quote:

---

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.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: Can&#39;t get away with ANYTHING around here &#33;&#33;&#33; http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Moonie.gif

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riddler@22 July 2003 - 20:35
Enter here and take your licks &#33;http://www.emotipad.com/emoticons/Put%20em%20up.gif

:lol:

---

Hahah so you think that you can take thttp://www.tiglath.org/yahoo/big56.gifowwwwwww what was that for???&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

:lol:

Oh My&#33;&#33; I believe that for the FIRST time ever, JPaul might be mistaken&#33;&#33;

A pound is NOT a unit of mass, but a measurement specific to this planet&#33;
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&#39;s post. He is not, in fact, mistaken (Damn&#33; I thought I had him), but he simply worded his explanation differently than I would&#39;ve...
Apologies to you and all others

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&#39;ve really isn&#39;t an acceptable diminution for would have. Frankly it has no elegance.

I take your constructive criticism well, JPaul&#33; And I thank you for the well-mannered (as usual) reply

Although I would like to point out that, despite it&#39;s lack of elegance, I tend to use "wouldn&#39;t&#39;ve" frequently in chat rooms, Instant messaging and The Forum :P(never in the creation of actual litterature, I DO have that much sense)

I think they&#39;re fun,...then again, sometimes fun takes away from elegance....oh well&#33;

Edit: typos

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@22 July 2003 - 18:33
However would&#39;ve really isn&#39;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. :(

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&#39;m doing the hard bit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tite-wad+23 July 2003 - 00:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tite-wad @ 23 July 2003 - 00:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@22 July 2003 - 18:33
However would&#39;ve really isn&#39;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. :( [/b][/quote]
Inelegant really lacks elegance, don&#39;t you think.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPaul@22 July 2003 - 18:47
Inelegant really lacks elegance, don&#39;t you think.

---

Would you have preferred unrefined? :huh:

Any more of this inelegance and someone&#39;s going to get hit with a piece of 2x4 would of a tree.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tite-wad+23 July 2003 - 00:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tite-wad @ 23 July 2003 - 00:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@22 July 2003 - 18:47
Inelegant really lacks elegance, don&#39;t you think.

---

Would you have preferred unrefined? :huh: [/b][/quote]
Very much so.

And just to clear things up, depending on context bouth pound and kilogram can be units of mass or weight.

But since the question was which is the heaviest (not the most massive) we are clearly talking about weight, so JP is definitely WRONG

Edit: typo

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynx@22 July 2003 - 18:51
Any more of this inelegance and someone&#39;s going to get hit with a piece of 2x4 would of a tree.

---

Ouch&#33;&#33;&#33; http://members.roadfly.com/tite-wad/whack.gif

That wood be painful indeed&#33; :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynx@23 July 2003 - 00:55
And just to clear things up, depending on context bouth pound and kilogram can be units of mass or weight.

But since the question was which is the heaviest (not the most massive) we are clearly talking about weight, so JP is definitely WRONG

Edit: typo

---

Weight is a force. Pound is not a unit of force.

Heavier - not heaviest.

More massive - not most massive.

Don&#39;t shout, particularly when talking bunkum.

Pedantry will get you nowhere.

Spring balances measure force, not mass. My spring balance is calibrated in pounds. Ergo pound can be a unit of force.

The question said heaviest, the equivalent in terms of mass would be most massive not more massive. I quoted the question.

So once again you are WRONG WRONG WRONG

i believe that a pound of gold (european money) would weigh more than a pound of feathers.

edit: but i&#39;m probably wrong since i dont know pounds

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kAb@23 July 2003 - 01:31
i believe that a pound of gold (european money) would weigh more than a pound of feathers.

edit: but i&#39;m probably wrong since i dont know pounds

---

We use GOLD ?

Quick, somebody call the police, I must have been robbed.

Edit: ps I think we&#39;ve already established that it&#39;s the other way round.