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: A weighty subject



Brian,

I thought I made my position clear by agreeing with Daniell's definition.

"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 - is
greater as we near the poles than it is at the equator; and the weight of a
substance varies, therefore, according to local causes, while the quantity of
matter in it remains the same."

Bob Carlson


In a message dated 10/16/99 9:05:04 PM Central Daylight Time,
inet@INTELLISYS.NET writes:

At 20:40 10/16/99 -0400, Robert Carlson wrote:
...
>The definition that weight is the force of gravity does not rely on any
>manmade device such as a scale. //
> Weight has already been defined simply as the force of gravity. Why
>introduce a manmade device into this definition?
> Nature does not give a damn
>about manmade devices, or whether we have figured out what she does. She
>will do what she will do, regardless of what we think she will do based on
>our measuring devices. Weight is the force of gravity is a beautiful
>definition and I do not want it bastardized. //

Bob is sturdily defending a concept of weight.
It would be fruitless to suggest this concept is itself,
a 'man made device' (though it undoubtedly is.)

In upholding W = mg I expect Bob takes m as unchanging.
I believe he may well agree that a masses weight may vary
from place to place. Equator to pole, say.
So he would easily agree that the g factor is what changes,
I expect.

It is not clear to me which factors Bob takes
into account when considering the change of 'g'.

Does he like buoyancy?
Does he like effects due to Earth rotation?
Does he like effects due to varying r to Earth center?
Does he like effects due to gravitational anomalies?
(i.e varying sub-surface mass concentrations - 'masscons')

Some texts explicitly subsume items two and three under 'g',
others lead one to believe 'g' is a constant.

I would wish people to lead me to explicitly examine my
sense of how 'legitimate' is each of these unmentioned
components of 'g' in Bob's place.
Would he share with us?


Sincerely



brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK