Skip to comments.
Kilo prototype mysteriously loses weight
Associated Press ^
| September 12, 2007
| JAMEY KEATEN
Posted on 09/13/2007 1:29:09 PM PDT by presidio9
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
1
posted on
09/13/2007 1:29:10 PM PDT
by
presidio9
To: presidio9
Global warming?
2
posted on
09/13/2007 1:30:53 PM PDT
by
darkwing104
(Let's get dangerous)
To: presidio9
I thought they only had one guy there who could polish the thing and get the same measured value within 10 micrograms every time. Maybe he’s losing his touch.
3
posted on
09/13/2007 1:30:54 PM PDT
by
coloradan
(Failing to protect the liberties of your enemies establishes precedents that will reach to yourself.)
To: presidio9
Blame GLOBAL WARMING. The shift in the water from ice to liquid is OBVIOUSLY now making our gravity unstable and pretty soon we may all end up floating away...............away.....help!
4
posted on
09/13/2007 1:31:52 PM PDT
by
WBL 1952
To: presidio9
Butcher putting his thumb on the scales? :)
5
posted on
09/13/2007 1:33:09 PM PDT
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto)
To: presidio9
The article neglects to tell us that the original designer of the cylinder was Jenny Craig.
All kidding aside,it does make one ponder.
6
posted on
09/13/2007 1:33:20 PM PDT
by
Kimmers
To: darkwing104
Naah. Proton decay. The next bad thing...
7
posted on
09/13/2007 1:34:12 PM PDT
by
battlecry
To: presidio9
8
posted on
09/13/2007 1:34:39 PM PDT
by
Petruchio
(Out to Lunch)
To: presidio9
Did it lose weight or did it lose mass?...............
9
posted on
09/13/2007 1:36:58 PM PDT
by
Red Badger
(ALL that CARBON in ALL that oil & coal was once in the atmospere. We're just putting it back!)
To: battlecry
This is France we are talking about, they surrendered to the Neutrons.
10
posted on
09/13/2007 1:38:14 PM PDT
by
darkwing104
(Let's get dangerous)
To: presidio9
...The cylinder was high-tech for its day in 1889 when cast from a platinum and iridium alloyDid they ever do a chemical analysis of the alloy? Radioactivity and radioisotopes hadn't been discovered yet in 1889, and traces of radioisotopes within the cylinder may have been present.
11
posted on
09/13/2007 1:38:48 PM PDT
by
rfp1234
(Nothing is better than eternal happiness. A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Therefore...)
To: presidio9
So a Kilo will weigh nothing in 2.5 billion years?
What are we going to use to weigh things for the remaining 2.5 billion years before the sun explodes?
To: battlecry; HuntsvilleTxVeteran
But seriously: If the standard kilo suddenly weighs less, doesn’t that mean that everything in the universe suddenly weighs MORE?
13
posted on
09/13/2007 1:40:03 PM PDT
by
presidio9
(Islam is as Islam does.)
To: battlecry; HuntsvilleTxVeteran; Kimmers
But seriously: If the standard kilo suddenly weighs less, doesn’t that mean that everything in the universe suddenly weighs MORE?
14
posted on
09/13/2007 1:40:13 PM PDT
by
presidio9
(Islam is as Islam does.)
To: coloradan
I thought they only had one guy there who could polish the thing and get the same measured value within 10 micrograms every time. Maybe he’s losing his touch. Maybe that guy croaked and the new polisher has a fondness for emery cloth.
15
posted on
09/13/2007 1:40:46 PM PDT
by
Charles Martel
(The Tree of Liberty thirsts.)
To: presidio9
I would think the copies gaining a minuscule amount would be the more likely culprit. We're talking 50 ug here, so the ones being moved around, packed, shipped, handled, etc. would probably be the ones to vary, IMHO.
16
posted on
09/13/2007 1:40:50 PM PDT
by
TChris
(Has anyone under Mitt Romney's leadership ever been worse off because he is Mormon?)
To: AntiGuv
17
posted on
09/13/2007 1:42:42 PM PDT
by
Wiz
To: presidio9
I believe when one takes into account the polarity and the radioactivity in conjunction with the viscosity and its effect on the relativity of the cylinder one must conclude that the elasticity and the capacity of the gravitivity completely dissipates the magnetivity of the weight minus the diffractivity you can only come up with a lighter object.
Apologies to Prof. Irwin Corey. ;o)
18
posted on
09/13/2007 1:43:43 PM PDT
by
ladtx
( "I don't know how I got over the hill without getting to the top." - - Will Rogers)
To: presidio9
That is actually impossible, since The Kilogram always weighs 1 kilogram. Therefore, all other kilogram weights, and possibly all other objects on Earth have increased in weight. Wait...um...no, that’s right.
Did any one else get that Intro to Physics question about how could you tell if the dimension of ever object in the universe was suddenly reduced by 50%?
19
posted on
09/13/2007 1:44:36 PM PDT
by
NYFriend
To: ladtx
Apologies to Prof. Irwin Corey. ;o)What is a duck?
20
posted on
09/13/2007 1:46:35 PM PDT
by
darkwing104
(Let's get dangerous)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson