From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 09:45:01 EDT
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Howard Engelskirchen wrote: > Hi Paul, > > You wrote: > > Metrologists want a standard of weight that does not itself > 'contain' weight. > > My understanding is that the standard for measuring length is the wave > length emitted by an isotope of krypton. I haven't read the issue of > Science you refer to, but my guess would be that if meterologists are able > to define weight in terms of something that is not weight it will be because > they can reduce weight to that property. You might be able to avoid the > problem of a mass absorbing mass from the atmosphere, but you won't avoid > the problem that in comparing two things they must be comparable under some > common aspect which they share. Two things are distant from one another > because they both have existence in space (Marx's critique of Bailey). Two > things are comparable in the property of what we now call weight because > e.g. they both resist acceleration or whatever other common aspect turns out > to solve the kilogram problem. > > Howard Howard, are you suggesting that money as measure of value must be a commodity today? Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 11 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT