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] |
[Original Message]John--Read Robert Carlson's reply.
From: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>
2) How does "experiencing a weightless condition" differ from "being
weightless"?
Obviously I'm not understanding something here. Are we really going
to argue about what the meaning of "is" is?
3) I've been following this thread pretty closely, and I don't think
anybody would disagree with the proposition that the astronauts
"appear" weightless in the spacecraft frame. The problem lies
elsewhere. There is one camp that says the astronauts appeare
weightless because they _are_ weightless ... and for the life of
me I can't figure out what the other camp is saying. Apparently
they say "the astronauts appear weightless but are not weightless
(in the spacecraft frame) because ......" and I have no idea how
to finish that sentence in a way that is consistent with the ordinary
definition of weight.
I repeat: The problem is not with zero "apparent" weight. The problem
has to do with contrasting "apparent" weight with some other kind of
weight. I have tried, but have been unable to figure out what this
other kind of weight is.
4) Students (even the most naive students) start out with some rough
concept of weight. If you talk to them about "apparent" weight, they
naturally assume that stands in contrast to some other kind of weight.
If you use such a term but don't follow through with some sort of
contrast, that will cause all sorts of confusion. In the field of
marketing and sales, this would be called overhanging the market,
by which I mean ginning up demand for a product you're not prepared
to sell.
Again: If you're going to say that the astronauts have zero "apparent"
weight, why not just call it weight (in the spacecraft frame) and be
done with it? If there's another part to the story, I'd like to hear
it.