physics_lesson Q This lesson is with reference to the fig_newton, a force described elsewhere today. First, in the defintion of the fig_newton, the units are incorrect. Acceleration is in units of distance divided by time squared. The definition stated accelereation incorrectly in units of distance divided by time. If a force equal to one fig_newton is applied to different types of newtons, each type will achieve an acceleration that is inversely proportional to its mass. This is because acceleration is force divided by mass. So, unless the three types of newtons at issue here (see fig_newton) have exactly the same masses, which is unlikely, they will achieve different accelerations when the same force, the fig_newton, is applied. 000928 ... miniver What a dear, kind soul...fussing over a tiny little rhetorical question like that. Aha. Deary me. The "fig_newton" was the force required to accelerate a fig, though. Not a newton. So, if you're interested, my little raspberry/apple cinnamon proposition isn't exactly what it appears to be. It really doesn't make sense at all. Unless the quote had defined a fig_newton_newton. (I'm not sure if J. Hart was misquoted or misinformed on the time^2 issue.) 000928 ... Q Well, should we see how far down we can stoop in nit-picking? There is no problem is with the physics text, except in the unlikely event it mistated the units on acceleration. The problem is with the question you posed. By those of us who rarely become involved with pastries - who drink our lattes straight - your question could be read as nonsensically comparing a fig, an object that like a raspberry has mass and can have an accelerating force applied to it, to a flavor, "apple cinnamon," a concept without mass and to which an accelerating force cannot be applied. The only way to give you the benefit of the doubt and remove the nonsense was to presume that all of "fig," "raspberry" and "apple cinnamon" referred to flavors. In the context of the proposition, which required objects that have mass and to which accelerating forces can be applied, these flavors could only have been for objects that are cookies known to the consuming public by the name "newton." If I were a sucker for pastries with my lattes, I would have recognized that an "apple cinnamon" also is an object with mass to which an accelarting force could be applied. Sorry, though, I'm not a sucker. I'm just an addict (who plays whatever kind of poker you would ever like to play). The lesson, though, is that blathes concerning physics need to be written for both suckers and addicts. 000928 ... j_blue y havent our food geneticists corrected that cruel twist of nature that forever seperates the apple from the cinnamon anyways? is it too much to ask for the apple cinnamon fruit?? enough of all this corn and grass shit, give us something we actually want, damn it! 000928 ... miniver Well, poop. I just thought it was cute, 'sall. No trick. Just, you know...figs, newtons,...tiny, helpless little puns... 000928 ... Sand Javier 010718 ... Sol i dropped physics yay yay yay yay! hehe, i have fallen asleep in almost every lesson over the last term, so as soon as the as's were over,m it went :) 010718 ... einstein juice_newton discovered gravity 011030 ... . . 041221 ... mp21k (: 041221 ... One Einstein_is_just_a_'student' 041221 what's it to you? who go blather from