Stupid Guest Tricks

You may notice kenkid hasn't posted here since. Might have to do with some of the smileys I applied to him after we shut out the lights for the night...

Goofyernmost wrote:Always remember and don't ever forget...muscle weighs more then fat. It's an important distinction when you are attempting to prevent someone from riding strictly because of weight. It could hurt!
:kingkong:

Time for me to be a huge pain in the...
Muscle does not technically weigh more than fat. Example, which weighs more, a pound of muscle or a pound of fat? The correct statement should be that muscle is denser than fat.

Sorry, just one of those things I like to do to stir shit. See my sig for further details. :twisted:

and his mom is FUGLY!

kcberlin wrote:Time for me to be a huge pain in the...
Muscle does not technically weigh more than fat. Example, which weighs more, a pound of muscle or a pound of fat? The correct statement should be that muscle is denser than fat.

Sorry, just one of those things I like to do to stir shit. See my sig for further details. :twisted:

Which weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of rocks? :D:

kcberlin wrote:Time for me to be a huge pain in the...
Muscle does not technically weigh more than fat. Example, which weighs more, a pound of muscle or a pound of fat? The correct statement should be that muscle is denser than fat.

Sorry, just one of those things I like to do to stir shit. See my sig for further details. :twisted:

I wasn't referring pound per pound, I was referring pounds per mass. There would be more mass to equal a pound of fat then a pound of muscle and way more mass if it were a pound of feathers. So an equal sized block of fat would weight on scale, less then the equal sized block of muscle. So both your statement and mine are correct and exactly the same.

If you strictly went by using a scale to determine whatever the hell it was that that guy was trying to determine, he might be surprised that someone might be right up there on the weight side but not be fat at all. It was kind of a joke point anyway...but there it is.

Goofyernmost wrote:I wasn't referring pound per pound, I was referring pounds per mass. There would be more mass to equal a pound of fat then a pound of muscle and way more mass if it were a pound of feathers. So an equal sized block of fat would weight on scale, less then the equal sized block of muscle. So both your statement and mine are correct and exactly the same.

I think somebody needs to learn the difference between "mass" and "volume". They aren't the same -- especially when talking to all the engineers we have on this board.

Zazu wrote:I think somebody needs to learn the difference between "mass" and "volume". They aren't the same -- especially when talking to all the engineers we have on this board.

Definition of Mass...a body of coherent matter, usually of indefinite shape and often of considerable size.

Definition of Volume...how much three-dimensional space a substance (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma) or shape occupies or contains.

Although slightly different, for the purposes of this particular discussion they are pretty much interchangeable, in my opinion. With or without an engineering background.

Zazu wrote:I think somebody needs to learn the difference between "mass" and "volume". They aren't the same -- especially when talking to all the engineers we have on this board.

Goofyernmost wrote:Definition of Mass...a body of coherent matter, usually of indefinite shape and often of considerable size.

Definition of Volume...how much three-dimensional space a substance (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma) or shape occupies or contains.

Although slightly different, for the purposes of this particular discussion they are pretty much interchangeable, in my opinion. With or without an engineering background.

Well, this physicist and engineer takes mass as something quite different from volume. "Mass" is functionally equivalent to weight when on the surface of this planet. Your comments confused me, and perhaps others considering the number of jokes about how much a pound of feathers weighs.

Not knocking the point you were trying to make; just suggesting a clearer way you might want to make it.

Zazu wrote:Well, this physicist and engineer takes mass as something quite different from volume. "Mass" is functionally equivalent to weight when on the surface of this planet. Your comments confused me, and perhaps others considering the number of jokes about how much a pound of feathers weighs.

Not knocking the point you were trying to make; just suggesting a clearer way you might want to make it.

What is this...dump on my lack of engineering degree thread. I know you know what I was talking about otherwise you would have said...what do you mean, not...there is a difference between Mass and Volume.

I don't exactly understand why it is necessary to take a semi-lighthearted discussion about a stupid weight related post and make it into a grammatical war. You are right...I am wrong...I'll do my time out now. In the future I will try to remember that I have to defend my dissertation.

Goofyernmost wrote:What is this...dump on my lack of engineering degree thread. I know you know what I was talking about otherwise you would have said...what do you mean, not...there is a difference between Mass and Volume.

I don't exactly understand why it is necessary to take a semi-lighthearted discussion about a stupid weight related post and make it into a grammatical war. You are right...I am wrong...I'll do my time out now. In the future I will try to remember that I have to defend my dissertation.

Sorry to all. As I said, I was trying to stir shit. Obviously it worked, but I didn't mean for it to start an argument. Maybe I'm the one who should be doing the time out.