| 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] |
I would like to clarify and summarize this thread. The conventionalmaintain that it
definition of weight is, e.g., as stated in "A Textbook of the
Principles of Physics" by Alfred Daniell, Macmillan & Co, New York
and London, 1894:
The remaining fundamental idea involving measurement is that
of *Mass* or *quantity of Matter*. The notion implied in this
term is quite distinct from that of Weight. The weight of a
certain quantity of matter depends upon the presence and
nearness of other matter, which attracts it according to the
well-known law of Gravitation. This may, and even within our
terrestrial observation, does vary; the effect of gravity on a
given mass - that is to say, its Weight - . . . .
I believe this definition is substantially equivalent to the
definitions in all textbooks which have made significant market
penetration in the English speaking world. . . .
. . .
Since the latter definition is more accurate and more useful
than the conventional definition, and if it does not disagree
with some externally mandated meaning for the term "weight", I
advocate its adoption in future textbooks. instruction we
do, it is conceptually simpler than the conventional definition,I
does no violence to any of the Newtonian physics
and it is less wrong!
. . .
What benefit is there to being out of step with this meaning?
Leigh