On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 18:22:24 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:23:12 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:45:38 GMT, Gene Nygaard
wrote:

So what happens when you get serious about your weight and go to the
doctors office or the gym and weigh yourself on one of those platform
type beam balances?

Would your pounds be different on the moon? By how much?

A balance, by implicit definition again, consists of comparing two
masses under the influence of Gravity. Given it is a bridge, in a
sense, the constant of Gravity is discarded from both sides and mass
is compared only. It is a convenience of earthly expectations (and a
defunct system of measurement) that the scale is marked in pounds.

However, you do ask for a reference and acknowledge the NIST as a
reputable source (many here ignore this commonplace):
http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/...constants.html

There is absolutely nothing about pounds on this page. So don't be
bull****ting us.

That is the whole point. You don't see pounds there for mass do you?
That's because pounds are not a unit of mass. They are a unit of
weight which is NOT a constant throughout the universe (nor on earth
for that matter).

The link:

is quite specific to the matter.

Not a link directly on the page above; maybe on one of the links
there.

There is absolutely nothing about pounds on this page either. You are
still bull****tiing.

Have you tried loosing weight?

One of the supreme ironies comes in the form of the unstated
conditional. In your regard, it is pounds is intimately tied to the
gravitational constant (mass and G).

They are? I asked you for some citation proving that pounds are not
units of mass. You have not done so.

Uh-huh. In equal measure, I couldn't "prove" that sparrows' tongues
are also "not" units of mass. Well, there are many here who's minds I
cannot change, you simply have to go to the end of that line. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC