# Talk:Newton (unit)

WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Measurement (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Measurement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated Start-class)
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

## Disamb

Old talk at Talk:Newton (unit)

I think Newton should be the disambiguation page. Take a look at how many different kinds of articles link to it. It's not like Paris, which has dozens of linkers (of which almost all go to the French city, one or two to the legendary figure, and none to Paris, Texas).

Newton could be the poster child of disambiguation, with an almost perfect balance of references to the British guy, the SI unit, and the PDA.

Just my 2¢. --Ed Poor 15:02 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)

See my post in the other talk. Sir Issac has a first name, the PDA's name is not just Newton and the cities can be naturally disambiguated. Therefore there is no need to do full disambiguation (a block is more than enough). --mav

I agree, Newton should automatically link to a disambiguation page. (question, PDA, does that acronym somehow relate to the unit of force that a Newton is?)Alex Bieser (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

## Overly precise

It's not appropriate to cite the standard gravity to huge precision here: real Earth gravity varies by a few tenths of one percent across the Earth, gross enough to detect with a simple spring weighing device, let alone an electromagnetic balance. -- The Anome 18:14, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How can a kilogram force be measured accurately in newtons when the attraction of gravity changes based upon elevation and location? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsfanczar (talkcontribs) 19:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

## Newton and apples

Just to note: Isaac Newton *contemplated* apples as explained in Isaac Newton and http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/texts/rsstukeley_n.html. after dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden, & drank thea under the shade of some appletrees, only he, & myself. amidst other discourse, he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly, the notion of gravitation came into his mind. "why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground," thought he to him self: occasion'd by the fall of an apple, as he sat in a comtemplative mood: "why should it not go sideways, or upwards? but constantly to the earths centre? assuredly, the reason is, that the earth draws it. there must be a drawing power in matter. & the sum of the drawing power in the matter of the earth must be in the earths center, not in any side of the earth. therefore dos this apple fall perpendicularly, or toward the center. if matter thus draws matter; it must be in proportion of its quantity. therefore the apple draws the earth, as well as the earth draws the apple."

The story about an apple hitting him on the head is an urban legend. Bobblewik 11:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The quote is now located at http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=OTHE00001, it appears. MathiasRav (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I cracked up when I saw "102 g (such as a small apple)". Good for Wikipedia, Britannica editors would never be allowed such levity when writing about gravity. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

## definition of 1Newton

A newton is the amount of force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second squared.

Seems clear enough. 1kg is clear, 1 m/s^2 is clear. No wait a minute, it is not clear. This applies only to so-called inertial frames. --MarSch 12:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if it is unclear, you can clearly write it in LaTeX i.e. 1m/s^ can be written as ${\displaystyle 1m/{s^{2}}\!}$.

This section currently states that F=m/a. I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Should be F=ma. I'd change it myself, but I'm a newbie and not eager to change such an important page. -- Brianberns 04:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

## More Newton Definition Things

In a recent revert, Gene Nygaard stated:

(revert un-logged in Gracenotes, math markup is a bad thing when you are too lazy to fix never-to-be-italicized symbols)

This is a little ambiguous. There are people who use reverts a lot, and reverting is a good thing usually. But even if the math tags were somehow faulty or misused, I believe that the explanation of the units was much more explicit and helpful than the "is it was it is" explanation that existed before my editing and after the revert.

The newton is the [[MKS]] unit of force. It is named after [[Isaac Newton]] for the extensive work he did on the subject. Like all forces, it is calculated with $f=ma$. A ''newton'' is the amount of force required to [[accelerate]] a [[mass]] of one [[kilogram]] at a rate of one [[meter per second squared]].

This means that, in the MKS metric system, a newton is equal to a $kg \cdot \frac{m}{ s^2 }$. However, this is commonly re-written as $\frac{kg \cdot m}{ s^2 }$.

Thus, a ''newton'' is defined as the amount of force required to [[accelerate]] a [[mass]] of one [[kilogram]] at a rate of one [[meter per second squared]].

Now, the current definition uses negative exponents -- something that is almost never used in any formal statement of a mathematical definition or concept.

I also agree with MarSch. This article doesn't even get into (or mention) ficticious forces such as centrifugal force or motion in an accelerated frame of reference.

(deleted faulty statement)

Does anyone second (or stand in opposition to) the above things being changed?

Regards, Gracenotes 23:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dynes are not an SI unit. They are part of the old CGS system. And accelerated frame of reference are beyond the scope of this article. --agr 00:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
About dynes: what was I thinking? SI != Metric.
I've said this before, bit I don't think that negative exponents are apropriate (even if they still are in common use across Wikipedia). In addition, accelerated frames of reference are explained very well in the article that describes them, but I think that they deserve at least a fleeting mention in this article.
Thanks for reading, Gracenotes 01:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As for negative exponents, I'm not sure very many people would understand

1 N = 1 kg·m/s2 but not
1 N = 1 kg·m·s–2

In any case, this should be discussed in a wider forum,such as Talk:Units of measurement --agr 03:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a little test for you, Gracenotes. Can you go to ideal gas law and fix the units there? Then come back and we can talk about it. Gene Nygaard 05:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems as though, besides social issues, Talk pages about units seem to be the most heated (as an extreme generalization). It is said that "There is no one as unknowledgeable as a professor outside his field of work." Even though I am no professor, I know what I know solidly, and don't wander into unfamiliar areas without coming out of them with a near-full understanding of them. I haven't gotten into the ideal gas law yet.
Yes, I am avoiding the question, and with good reason.
Gene Nygaard, I appreciate the fact that you're helping in eliminating amateurism on Wikipedia. But I'm concerned with excellency too, and if something is faulty, I'd like to know what it is.
In my opinion this shouldn't turn into an ad hominem argument. Thanks, Gracenotes 01:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not an ad hominem argument. I'd just like to give you a little appreciation for the effectiveness and unambiguousness of the positive and negative exponent notation—and for the ambiguity and misuse of slashes for division. So see if you can fix it; if you don't see the problem there, then you cannot understand the issue here. Gene Nygaard 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've checked over the article, and despite the fact that I don't traffic in physical chemistry, I've noticed that:

1. The atm (atmosphere) is not an SI unit. However, the rest of the units (Joules, Kelvin, moles, Liters) are. The atmospheric measurement template says that the Pascal is the SI unit of measurement, and thus it should be used.

2.In addition, the aritcle says that

P is the pressure in atm,
V is the volume in L,
n is the amount of matter in mol,
R is the combined proportionality constant universal gas constant, 0.08206 L atm/mol K (when pressure is expressed in atm and the volume in L)
R can also be expressed as 8.314 J/mol K,
nR is the amount of matter in J•K-1,
T is the absolute temperature in K.

3. In regards to the second explanation of R and the definition of nR, the current notation doesn't convey that nR is should be measured in J/K's per mole because of mixed notation (using both division and negative exponents).

4. Also, J/mol K is also ambiguous because it suggests that J and K are in the numerator and that mol is in the denominator.

5. It took me some amount of time to figure out what n, R, and nR meant (as they are treated as seperate entities in the equation). Perhaps a rewording might bring clarification.

That's all I found, then. It was interesting to do some research, as usual, but I may be mistaken. -Gracenotes 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

## Apple

In the article is states "In addition, 1N is the force of gravity on a small apple on Earth." is there any cited or sources for this? If not we should state the mass the apple, 0.102kg or something like that, because a small apple is too vague. Pseudoanonymous 00:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

## Newton-second

I just removed the REDIRECT from newton second and started an article on the subject of newton-second being the SI units of impulse. feel free to improve on the stub. should compound units be expressed with "-" or not? Benkeboy 21:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

## Examples

A few more might be nice, just to give a better example of exactly how much 1 newton is. How much force is applied when bench pressing 100lbs? etc... 209.217.93.83 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, just holding a 100 lb mass still requires that one exert the same force upwards that the Earth's gravity is pulling downwards. 100 lb is about 45.36 kilograms, and the force of gravity is about 9.81 m/s², thus, the force required to cancel gravity is 45.36 * 9.81 = 445 N. To bench-press it requires more force, since you have to actually push it upwards, thus more than cancelling out gravity Nik42 03:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

## Normal Force

"The force on which Earth's gravity pulls a mass towards it is called normal force. The normal force of a human being weighing 70 kg is approximately 700 N. "

Incorrect. The normal force is the equal-and-opposite reaction generated by a force on any object - doesn't have to be gravity. Pushing on a wall generates a normal force. Rewording. Aevangelica 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

## Lowercase?

Why is the title of this page in lowercase? No other SI unit is. I edited it and then it was reverted. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm using this source [1] LukeSurl 13:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The rule is that newton is a common noun and doesn't need a capital every time it's used. This does not mean that must be lowercased every time it's used -- when it starts a sentence, sentence fragment, or title a capital is perfectly OK. This article does not need Template:Lowercase, no more than inch or foot need it. Indefatigable 02:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: your source: "except at the beginning of a sentence or in capitalized material such as a title." This is a title. It gets capitalized. I'm changing it. 66.251.27.41 05:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I know this is an old thread,but sticking in my 2 cents anyway. The reason Newton has a capital N is because it was a guys name, same as Hertz (Hz), but not the same as inch or foot. The fact of it being a common noun becomes irrelevant in this example. A Taxed Mind (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

## Why does Newton lead here?

Wouldn't the person be a better default? Or the disambiguation page? Mathiastck 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this should probably lead to the disambiguation page. Strider01 15:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It should lead to the Isaac Newton page. -69.47.186.226 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. If you are talking about Isaac Newton, you should generally have his given name there, and be able to link to it. If you are talking about any person or a place named Newton, the disambiguation page at that link shows why identification is necessary, and it is usually already available for that purpose in the article being linked from. By far the most links on Wikipedia, even more than to Isaac Newton, will be to the newton as a unit of force. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If "Darwin" leads to a disambiguation page, why not "Newton"? This doesn't seem consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.215.247 (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The primary topic of one phrase doesn't mean that another phrase has a parallel primary topic. Consistency here is not sought. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

## Decanewton (daN)

I see that data sheets for mechanical items from anti-vibration mounts to ropes are now quoting forces or loads more technically correctly (but less readily understood) in terms of daN instead of kg or kgf. In standard SI notation daN = decanewton, and 1daN = 10N or about 1kgf. I suggest adding a paragraph to this effect. GilesW (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

## do archimedis principle and newtons first law are same

do archimedis principle and newtons first law are same .if so reply me the prospectus.if not also reply me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.175.84 (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange place to ask such a question. No, they're not the same. dougmc (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

## Metre/Meter

there was some variance in which spelling of metre was being used. I've looked back tothe first version of the article, and that used British English (plus the newton is named after an Englishman), so it seems to me that per WP:ENGVAR, British English it should be. David Underdown (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

..and this means what? For me, metre comes from a time when french was the international language (as it still is a bit in diplomatics, it was largely in all kind of international commitees (another french word) and in colloqyums at the time. So metre comes from "le mètre" the meter.
Bad that in english som tools to measure somethings are also called 'meter' (as it is for electrical power ). So metre is a kind of wrong writen adopted french from british scientifics - isn't it?--Cosy-ch (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

## Please move 'Newton (unit of force)' to 'Newton (force)'

Please move 'Newton (unit of force)' to 'Newton (force)'. This will make it consistent with other units. Lightmouse (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, please don't. The vast majority of Category:Units of measure are currently disambiguated as just "(unit)", except for those that you already moved without any evidence of prior discussion or consensus. Hqb (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Followup: I've just started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Units of measure. Everyone's encouraged to weigh in. Hqb (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

## "Newton" is usually used to mean Sir Isaac

This is very puzzling. "Newton" is primarily used to mean Isaac Newton (search "Newton" on google images if in doubt), yet this page is the first entry that wikipedia takes us to. Clearly, a strong case can be made that "newton" should at the very least take the reader to the ambiguity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.230.51 (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

## Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move. Specifically, NewtonNewton (unit) and Newton (disambiguation)Newton. Approximately 300 links have been hand dabbed with many past incorrect links pointing to Newton piped to their proper dab targets (especially to Isaac Newton). I'll take care the remaining tonight.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NewtonNewton (unit of force) — And Newton (disambiguation) to Newton. Except to scientists and their students, "Newton" is as likely to first suggest one of the many places called Newton (see long list at Newton (disambiguation)#Places), or the man Isaac Newton. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unless someone firmly commits to fixing the literally hundreds of incoming links to the article about the unit. Also, if the page is moved, it should be to Newton (unit), by analogy to Pascal (unit), Tesla (unit), Weber (unit), etc. There's no need for a long disambiguator when no other quantity is measured in newtons. Hqb (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Not to worry. The dab page will occupy the page name Newton, and it is the page name that has the incoming links. There are over 500 of those in article space, so the dab page will go to the top of the task list maintained by Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• I wouldn't be quite so optimistic. The very fact that the top 10 entries in that list all have more than 150 incoming links (and are not due to recent moves) is by itself ample evidence that merely being listed carries no expectation of a speedy fix. I'd like to remind everyone of WP:DAB#Links to disambiguated topics: A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links. Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.
• The top 10 list used to be pages with over 1000 links. Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links has achieved a huge amount of work. Anyway, by their nature ambiguous base names accumulate incoming links no matter what content is there; at least with a dab page there, each incoming link has to be checked only once. For that reason, disambiguation should happen only after the dab page has moved to the base name. --Una Smith (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Newton (unit). The unit is not the primary meaning of the term. Make this a DAB page. Requiring redirection of incoming links is not a good reason to not perform a move—these things can be changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support to "unit". Speaking as a math/science student, I think of Sir Isaac before the unit. Sceptre (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Newton (unit). It's not obvious whether there's a primary topic; if there is, the man has as much of a claim as the unit does; Newton is thus ambiguous. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Newton (unit). olderwiser 12:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support move to Newton (unit), per above. "Newton" can mean a lot of things, and I don't think this is an overwhelmingly dominant meaning. Using "(unit of force)" is unnecessary since there are no other units called "Newton". Jafeluv (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support — I am amazed that article has occupied this page name so long. --Una Smith (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

## Unit Equivalence

Where does the second equality ( M*L/T²) comes from? I'm no physicist, but it makes no sense unit wise. And what is L supposed to be? Litre? It's not a SI unit. I'm removing it, and if someone wants to add it back, please explain where it comes from. 92.149.232.189 (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's dimensions - M=mass, L=length, T=time. It's not supposed to be in units. The current article is incorrect to call kg etc. "dimensions". Ian Cairns (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Logically it should be removed. It belongs in the article on force, rather than here. This is an article about a unit of force, not force itself. Praemonitus (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

## Old discontinued systems

Your tables mentions systems, they have been purely theoric or scientific and not in wide use. The systems M, GM and MTS are no more allowed to use and strictly historic. You should at least mention this in order to give a hint for less informed millions of visitors--Cosy-ch (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)--Cosy-ch (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)