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

John Porter (
Tue, 14 May 1996 14:13:16 -0400

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
2. Gravity is not a force, it is an acceleration.
3. Inertia is not a force, it is mass. (except rotational inertia also
depends on shape.)

> 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).

This finding will put some theoretical physicists out of work, I'm afraid.

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

> 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]

John Porter