Re: virus: Is the term "meme" necessary?

Tom Loeber (
Tue, 14 May 1996 15:36:04 -0700 (PDT)

>Tom Loeber wrote:
>> Gee whiz. Weight requires at least two masses and an accelerating force be
>> it gravity or inertia.
>1. Weight is force; so, strictly speaking, it "requires" a mass and an
Oops. Sorry. I defaulted to the convention of not listing the distance
component of the vector for weight. Still it is good to see that you
realize that mass is a component of weight, that weight has a scientific
model, unlike Richard Brodie's assertion.
>2. Gravity is not a force, it is an acceleration.
That's it? What causes the acceleration? Can we use the attraction between
two masses to do useful work? Friend of mine jumped out of a fourth story
window onto a street below many years ago. Perhaps because there was no
force to be reckoned with that he survived to this day.
>3. Inertia is not a force, it is mass. (except rotational inertia also
>depends on shape.)
Can one observe inertia without reference to another point in space that has
mass and could a force or energy component be derived from such relationships?
>> I'm sorry if something that requires contextual
>> relationship for complete understanding appears meaningless to you. Could
>> it be because patriotism to the "meme" concept requires considering
>> something without using "memes" meaningless (memeless)?
>Not at all. I misunderstood what you meant by "includes multiple masses".
>You meant that to have "weight", you must have n>=2 massive bodies.
>You use the word "mass" to mean "massive body". That threw me.
>> I realize that 1+1
>> very rarely equals 2 in universe except in the realm of pure mathematics
>> (here's something else we can discuss if you wish) but to say 1+1 is less
>> than 2, that's even more special case and rare.
>Ok, let me get this straight:
>"Mass" has a concept value of 1.
>"Acceleration" has a concept value of 1.
>"Force" therefore has a concept value of 2 (or possibly >2).
My reference is to weight which is made up of more than one mass and
gravity, at least three components.
>I think you miss the point of Mr. Brodie's post. Weight has always been
>experiential; we had come to think of an object's weight as an intrinsic
>property of the object; it was not thought of as "relational". Only since
>Newton have we learned that weight is "relational"; that there is a
>fundamental instrinsic property we call mass; that the interaction of mass
>and acceleration (such as gravity) produces a detectable force (such as
Maybe I would have gotten Mr. Brodie's point if we were still in the times
before Newton. Help me. Is the acceleration component of weight gravity or
due to gravity?
Doesn't weight require more than one mass?
>> I guess if something is
>> "derivative" it doesn't have a scientific interpretation?
>Huh, did I imply this? I don't think so.
>> I once threw a rock about 75 feet and hit a brick the first time I tried.
>I'm impressed. But notice that except for hefting the rock, you were
>interacting with its mass, not its weight.
>> I find at least one of your claims to be logically false.
>I'm still not sure which one...
>> Please don't take this personally. Are we in this togethor for mutual
>> awareness enhancement or are we just brow beating?
>Friends... [extending hand]
Right on! I shouldn't pretend to know it all. Geez, I'm stirring up some
stuff here and I'm not attending to necessities. Got to defer responses and
get on with gathering some more tokens to appease the powers that be. Wish
I had a good current dictionary or encyclopedia of physics on hand. The
opportunity to correct my mistaken assumptions and learnings is something I
value greatly. I'll get back to you about the reference to a logical
falsehood. I'm getting spammed just from this one mail list alone! FYI,
"spammed" refers to the filling up of one's mailbox.