On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:01:09 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:



Gene Nygaard wrote:
It's Jim Kelley who is having great difficulty dealing with these
"meter kilograms." Their existence demolishes one of his major
arguments. Will he, or any of the others making similar foolish
arguments, ever address this?

If you have a point, sir, I think it's time you should make it. If your
intent is nothing more than to blither inanities, then when will you
have your fill?

You can be pretty dense when you want to be.

Here's what you, Jim Kelley, wrote earlier in this thread:

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:44:09 -0700
Message-ID:

Why do you think torque wrenches have the unit
'foot-pounds' printed on them if the pound is a unit
of mass?

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 10:32:56 -0700
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 53
Message-ID:

And so a torque wrench has what kind of units printed on its
scale - mass and distance, or force and distance?

What was your point in asking these questions? Quite simple. You
were offering those "foot-pounds" as proof of the supposed fact that
pounds are units of force and not units of mass. In fact, you
specifically claimed, by asking a rhetorical question in last Friday's
message, that torque wrenches would not have these units on them if a
pound is a unit of mass.

So my followup to you is along the same lines: Do you claim that
those "meter kilograms" prove that kilograms are not units of mass?

Not a very difficult question to answer, is it, Jim?

Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/

Gene Nygaard wrote:
So my followup to you is along the same lines: Do you claim that
those "meter kilograms" prove that kilograms are not units of mass?

Not a very difficult question to answer, is it, Jim?

Nope. As I recall, the reason it came up was that you were denying that
pounds were a unit of force. I cited the torque wrench, and you pointed
out that kg-f are also units of force. I still think you lose on that
account. Don't you?

73 ac6xg

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:54:00 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:



Gene Nygaard wrote:
So my followup to you is along the same lines: Do you claim that
those "meter kilograms" prove that kilograms are not units of mass?

Not a very difficult question to answer, is it, Jim?

Nope. As I recall, the reason it came up was that you were denying that
pounds were a unit of force.

Then why did you claim something entirely different--not that this
proved that pounds force exist, but rather that it proved that pounds
could not be units of mass?

That official definition of a pound as a unit of force still remains
an elusive little devil, however. Don't you agree? Or are you good
enough to find it?

I cited the torque wrench, and you pointed
out that kg-f are also units of force. I still think you lose on that
account. Don't you?

Certainly not.

Thanks for correcting your earlier claims. You are making progress,
now admitting both that pounds are units of mass, and that kilograms
force exist just as well as pounds force do. Have you realized yet
that you are now aligning yourself with me, rather than with fools
like Richard Clark and KU2S, Raymond Sirois. With me, and with the
younger Resnick and Halliday (1960) that I quoted, not with the fools
you quoted, Halliday and Resnick (1981 appendix, and appendix of most
or all later editions).
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/