Re: Apparent weight

[William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>]

On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Roger Pruitt wrote:

> How about operationally defining weight as that which is measured when
> you step on a scale? Stepping on a scale in the space shuttle would
> result in a zero reading. Thus the person is weightless.

I find this very acceptable.  "Freely falling objects have no weight"

But is it possible to convince authors (and NASA) to give up saying "there
is (nearly) no gravity in the shuttle environment."  And what about
children's book authors who will take this as a stamp of approval for
their teaching that "there is no gravity in outer space."  What about the
general population, who know that gravity on earth is strong, but that
gravity in orbit is near zero, and who make the obvious conclusion that
gravity ends at the top of the atmosphere.  We all know that the moon is
in space, so gravity on the moon is zero, that's why the Apollo astronauts
had to wear those special magnetic boots.    ;)

I would find it hard to argue with "Microacceleration", "Microweight", or
"Micro-gee", but "Microgravity" gives my brain a mild case of free-fall
sickness.

I do realize what I am.  I'm a grammar engineer, who wishes to sculpt our
everyday language until it becomes an automatic physics lesson.  I do this
by pointing out that our misleading everyday language is "wrong."  But it
is wrong in a very real sense.  If a physicist with GR on his/her mind can
interpret a statement correctly, while the same statement teaches a
particular misconception to 99.99% of the rest of the population, then
that statement is "wrong" and should not be used by educators. 

((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  www.eskimo.com/~billb
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L