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] |
Unlike many on the list, I have no problem with the concept of weight being
a special name for the gravitational attraction of the earth (or other
nearby, large astronomical body) on an object. This gravitational
attraction dominates our daily lives in a more direct way than the
electrical force--we experience gravitational effects constantly while the
(even more important) electrical ones are basically invisible to us--thus
having a special name is not unwarranted. OK, there is a practical
problem with whether you call weight the net force towards the center of
the earth or just the gravitational attraction but the effects of the
rotating earth is usually not of major concern in an introductory course.
I also have no problem with the 'weightless' astronauts--they're NOT. They
have no apparent weight but again I harken back to the fact that we
experience our weight 'normally' through the balancing forces that keep us
from accelerating. In the absence of these 'upward' forces they _feel_
weightless.