Re: definition of weight (again)

[Bob Sciamanda <trebor@VELOCITY.NET>]

We cannot quarrel over our (verified) mathematical models of Physics.  Our
conceptual models are something else - part of this conceptualization is the
wording we choose.  I am not dismayed that there can be many varied
conceptualizations and wordings of the same physical phenomenon.  There
should be.  There is in every other field - and usually that's all they have
(no agreed mathematical models).  How many definitions are there of
"liberal", "conservative", the causes of the civil war, etc?  Even in
physics, conceptualization is a personal, human accomodation of our limited
intelligence to reality.  This is no place to impose a dictatorship of the
majority - it imposes a uniformity which is not real.

Bob Sciamanda (W3NLV)
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (em)
trebor@velocity.net
www.velocity.net/~trebor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Smith" <larry.smith@SNOW.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: definition of weight (again)


> I have my favorite definition of weight too (I say it is the gravitational
> force and so what the scales read is not equal to your weight in an
> accelerating elevator).  BUT.... I am willing to change if we can all
agree
> on the _best_ definition.
>
> See, the question isn't whether there are multiple definitions--we already
> know there are, with various sets of advantages and disadvantages.  The
> question is if we can decide on a BEST one and then all use it.  Is anyone
> else willing to change if the "other" one is deemed best?  I really am, in
> the interest of uniformity.  I know which definition I have liked in the
> past, but I'm not absolutely sure it is the BEST.
>
> Of course, this discussion is fruitless if no one is willing to change.
> But I'm officially proclaiming that if we can come to consensus on the
best
> definition, I'll be willing to use it, whatever it is.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks uniformity would be helpful?  I teach
> calc-based physics, algebra-based  physics, and conceptual physics all
this
> term, and each textbook uses a different definition.  I can either tell my
> classes different definitions (to match each text respectively) or tell
> them the one I like best and that physicists haven't agreed yet.  I
usually
> take the latter approach, but I'd rather not have to say that.
>
>
> At 12:22 PM -0700 2/7/02, Jim Green wrote:
> > Closure on this list???
> >
> > My advice, Larry, is just don't use the word..  It is not necessary in a
> > physics class.
>
> There are probably a few other words we could do without as well.  We
could
> circumlocute ourselves around quite a few words.  But it seems to me that
> stamping out the word weight would be even harder than stamping out heat
as
> a noun, Jim, because of every-day parlance.  And just because we _could_
> get by without a given word doesn't mean it is desirable to do so.  And,
> Jim, my students will certainly see the word in their textbooks.
>
> I think weight could be a useful word if we all agreed on the definition.
>
> This has direct bearing on the definition of g as well.  You aren't going
> to stamp that out too, are you, Jim?
>
>
> At 12:15 PM -0800 2/7/02, Bernard Cleyet wrote:
> > I suppose the point of the thread is what physicists use when
communicating
> > among themselves -- in that case why not do what we accept from
scientific
> > bodies e.g. SI.  This is a job for NBS or AIP no?
>
> Why not PHYS-L?  If not we, then who?  If not now, then when?  Once we
> decide, I think we could convince some textbook authors, write a couple of
> articles for AJP and the Physics Teacher, teach a few generations of
> students correctly, and be done.  Should only take a decade or two.
>
> Here, let's start right now:
>
> Does anyone on the list want to argue that weight is not a vector or a
force?
> No?  Good, then that part is done.
>
> Second question: for those who want weight to be what the scales read, is
> it the supporting force on the object or the object's force on the
support?
> (I guess it doesn't matter if it is a scalar.)
>
> Once that is answered we can debate the what-the-scales-read vs.
> gravitational-force question and how to label free-body diagrams.
>
>
> This is not so much about physics as it is about consensus and
> communication, and pedagogy.
>
> Larry (being only slightly facetious)