| 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] |
The principal of equivalence is often stated in textbooks but it is not
emphasized in the first semester. (Many of my students have hard time to
learn the difference between v and a). Same is true or the relative nature
of velocity; we do not always say "with respect to the road". Adding another
ambiguity to the term gravity is not desirable, in my opinion. The
gravitational pull (toward the center of Earth) in the orbiting shuttle, I
say, is about the same as at the sea level but the "apparent weight' is
nearly zero, as in a free-falling elevator.
According to the principle of equivalence there is no experiment
which can be performed which will didtinguish locally between the
presence of a gravitational field and acceleration of the frame in
which the measurement is carried out. ....
Calling the shuttle a microgravity (better would be migro-gee) is
entirely appropriate. ....
I do not need another noun in the first semester. Too many of them
already. The term "apparent weight" is good enough, I thunk.
Ludwik Kowalski