Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:17, 15 December 2005

Old talk at Talk:Newton (unit)

I think Newton should be the disambiguation page. Take a look at how many different kinds of articles link to it. It's not like Paris, which has dozens of linkers (of which almost all go to the French city, one or two to the legendary figure, and none to Paris, Texas).

Newton could be the poster child of disambiguation, with an almost perfect balance of references to the British guy, the SI unit, and the PDA.

Just my 2¢. --Ed Poor 15:02 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)

See my post in the other talk. Sir Issac has a first name, the PDA's name is not just Newton and the cities can be naturally disambiguated. Therefore there is no need to do full disambiguation (a block is more than enough). --mav

Hold your horses, I agree already!! --Ed Poor

It's not appropriate to cite the standard gravity to huge precision here: real Earth gravity varies by a few tenths of one percent across the Earth, gross enough to detect with a simple spring weighing device, let alone an electromagnetic balance. -- The Anome 18:14, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Newton and apples

Just to note: Isaac Newton *contemplated* apples as explained in Isaac Newton and http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/texts/rsstukeley_n.html. after dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden, & drank thea under the shade of some appletrees, only he, & myself. amidst other discourse, he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly, the notion of gravitation came into his mind. "why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground," thought he to him self: occasion'd by the fall of an apple, as he sat in a comtemplative mood: "why should it not go sideways, or upwards? but constantly to the earths centre? assuredly, the reason is, that the earth draws it. there must be a drawing power in matter. & the sum of the drawing power in the matter of the earth must be in the earths center, not in any side of the earth. therefore dos this apple fall perpendicularly, or toward the center. if matter thus draws matter; it must be in proportion of its quantity. therefore the apple draws the earth, as well as the earth draws the apple."

The story about an apple hitting him on the head is an urban legend. Bobblewik 11:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

definition of 1Newton

A newton is the amount of force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second squared.

Seems clear enough. 1kg is clear, 1 m/s^2 is clear. No wait a minute, it is not clear. This applies only to so-called inertial frames. --MarSch 12:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

More Newton Definition Things

In a recent revert, Gene Nygaard stated:

(revert un-logged in Gracenotes, math markup is a bad thing when you are too lazy to fix never-to-be-italicized symbols)

This is a little ambiguous. There are people who use reverts a lot, and reverting is a good thing usually. But even if the math tags were somehow faulty or misused, I believe that the explanation of the units was much more explicit and helpful than the "is it was it is" explanation that existed before my editing and after the revert.

I had written:
The newton is the ] unit of force. It is named after ] for the extensive work he did on the subject. Like all forces, it is calculated with <math>f=ma</math>. A ''newton'' is the amount of force required to ] a ] of one ] at a rate of one ].

This means that, in the MKS metric system, a newton is equal to a <math>kg \cdot \frac{m}{ s^2 }</math>. However, this is commonly re-written as <math>\frac{kg \cdot m}{ s^2 }</math>.

Thus, a ''newton'' is defined as the amount of force required to ] a ] of one ] at a rate of one ].

Now, the current definition uses negative exponents -- something that is almost never used in any formal statement of a mathematical definition or concept.

I also agree with MarSch. This article doesn't even get into (or mention) ficticious forces such as centrifugal force or motion in an accelerated frame of reference.

(deleted faulty statement)

Does anyone second (or stand in opposition to) the above things being changed?

Regards, Gracenotes 23:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dynes are not an SI unit. They are part of the old CGS system. And ccelerated frame of reference are beyond the scope of this article. --agr 00:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

About dynes: what was I thinking? SI != Metric.

I've said this before, bit I don't think that negative exponents are apropriate (even if they still are in common use across Misplaced Pages). In addition, accelerated frames of reference are explained very well in the article that describes them, but I think that they deserve at least a fleeting mention in this article.

Thanks for reading, Gracenotes 01:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A "See also" link to Accelerated reference frame would be fine by me, but this is not an article about force, it's about the units of force.

As for negative exponents, I'm not sure very many people would understand

1 N = 1 kg·m/s but not

1 N = 1 kg·m·s

In any case, this should be discussed in a wider forum,such as Talk:Units of measurement --agr 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a little test for you, Gracenotes. Can you go to ideal gas law and fix the units there? Then come back and we can talk about it. Gene Nygaard 05:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems as though, besides social issues, Talk pages about units seem to be the most heated (as an extreme generalization). It is said that "There is no one as unknowledgeable as a professor outside his field of work." Even though I am no professor, I know what I know solidly, and don't wander into unfamiliar areas without coming out of them with a near-full understanding of them. I haven't gotten into the ideal gas law yet.

Yes, I am avoiding the question, and with good reason.

Gene Nygaard, I appreciate the fact that you're helping in eliminating amateurism on Misplaced Pages. But I'm concerned with excellency too, and if something is faulty, I'd like to know what it is.

In my opinion this shouldn't turn into an ad hominem argument. Thanks, Gracenotes 01:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)