Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] definitions ... purely operational, or not



Well, I have to agree that microgravity is an ill-advised term. I was just looking for a positive in how they are describing things. Maybe misplaced.

Bill


William C. Robertson, Ph.D.


On Nov 9, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Hugh Haskell wrote:

At 13:28 -0700 11/09/2010, William Robertson wrote:

By the way, the folks at NASA and astronauts
increasingly use the term "microgravity" in an effort to clear this up.

And that, IMO is the worst offense of all. That will surely convince
the students that there is no gravity in space. Using that term
clears nothing up, it only introduces new prejudices. Yes we can say
that in free-fall the astronauts are in a gravity-free environment,
in accord with general relativity, but that is a very subtle concept,
and not one we should subject students to until after they have had
some time to get the intuitive ideas straightened out.

Every student, and many teachers, especially new ones, bring a lot of
improper baggage with them when they study physics, and it is
important that we lead them gently but firmly to the ideas about the
world that we know work and which will serve them well in the world
they will end up living in. IMO teaching them that mg is weight is
not one of them, in spite of the fact that many come to us thinking
that way. I like to start off with g expressed in terms of newtons
per kilogram, to de-emphasize the connection of g to acceleration.
Once they understand g as the gravitational analog to E, and that it
uses analogous units, then they are beginning to understand just what
all those forces that they have been fooling around with are, and
they might even be open to the idea that mass could just as easily
have been called "gravitational charge," and that it can also be
thought of in terms of inertia. Or more likely we would use the
converse idea, that what we call charge can be looked up as
"electrical mass." Now we can talk about inertial mass, and write the
gravitational version of NSL as m(inertial)*a = m(gravitational*g,
and the electrical analog as m(inertial)*a = m(electric)*E.
This enables us to show the students what I think is one of the
greatmysteries of the world--that while the ratio of m(electric) to
m(inerital) is a value that we can freely choose, the ratio of
m(gravitational) to m(inertial) is always exactly 1. And we have no
idea why that is true. (More properly, I have no idea why that is
true, but there may be some esoteric explanations to be found in
areas like string theory or the like that I have not been exposed to.)

Whether we want to go into all that is open to discussion, but I
would argue most strongly that the word "microgravity," especially as
used by NASA, should be banned from the English (and every other)
language. I cringe every time I hear someone who damned well should
know better say it.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:haskellh@verizon.net

It isn't easy being green.

--Kermit Lagrenouille
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l